Washington and John Marshall: Friends, Patriots, and Nation Builders
The Honorable Stewart G. Pollock (1995)

Stewart G. Pollock of Mendham was midway through his 16th year as an Associate
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey when he delivered his paper on the relationship between George Washington and John Marshall – from Washington’s friendship with Marshall’s father, to Valley Forge and the Battle of Monmouth, to a shared passion for promoting canals and interstate commerce that helped convince them of the need for a strong central government. Justice Pollock delves into Marshall’s opinion as U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice in Gibbons v. Ogden, a landmark interstate commerce case focusing on ferry traffic between New York and New Jersey. The case, Justice Pollock notes incidentally, had long-term ramifications for the establishment of Drew and Fairleigh Dickinson universities.

This is a story about two extraordinary men who helped the thirteen original colonies win their independence from England, who nursed those colonies to statehood and from statehood to a federal government. One man, George Washington, you know about. The other, John Marshall, is hardly a household word. In the course of my remarks, I shall describe their friendship, how they helped each other, and tell something about their personal lives and marriages. I shall mention also how each contributed to the development of our nation.

Washington was born in 1732, twenty-three years before John Marshall. In fact, John’s father, Thomas, was for many years a friend of Washington’s. Although these remarks are about the relationship between Washington and John Marshall, it might help if I say something about the relationship between Thomas Marshall and George Washington. Both Thomas Marshall and George Washington had worked as surveyors in Virginia at a time when surveying was essential to the development of the nation.1 Both were farmers, Washington from the more sophisticated and genteel northern Virginia, and Thomas from the rougher western part of the colony. Before the Revolution, Thomas had visited Washington at Mt. Vernon.2 After the Revolution, Thomas sent flower seeds from his farm for planting at Mt. Vernon.3

John was born in Germantown, in what is now Facquier County, on September 24, 1755. He was the oldest of fifteen children born to Thomas and his wife, Mary. Thomas and Mary were well-educated for that time and place, and they arranged for a Scottish minister to tutor John and the other children.

No one seems sure when John Marshall first met George Washington. The catalyst in their friendship, however, was the American Revolution. In 1776, Washington was forty-four, the most respected individual in the American colonies, and the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. Marshall was twenty years old, and, like his father, quick to respond to Washington’s call.

Physically, mentally, and morally, George Washington and John Marshall had much in common. Both men stood over six feet tall. Each was physically strong and rugged, as they had to be to survive the rigors of the Revolution. Washington was the more muscular, John Marshall being tall and lanky. Marshall had raven black hair and eyes that shone like onyx.4 His eyes were what people remembered about his appearance. They shone, reflecting the brilliant brain behind them. But John Marshall shared more than a keen mind with George Washington. As both demonstrated in the Revolution and thereafter, they were men of great physical and moral courage.

Marshall began his military service as a lieutenant in the Facquier County militia, and from 1776 to 1778, served in the Virginia continental line.5 Two war experiences in particular forged the lifelong bonds between George Washington and John Marshall: the brutal winter of 1777-78 at Valley Forge and the torrid battle of Monmouth on June 28, 1778.

Recall that during the winter of 1777-78 the British troops were comfortably housed and fed in Philadelphia, while Washington and his starving troops struggled to survive in the snow of Valley Forge. To say that their situation was desperate does not adequately describe the depths of their despair.

Marshall wrote: “At no period of the war had the american army been reduced to a situation of greater peril than during the winter at Valley Forge.”6 In Washington’s words, “no history now extant can furnish an instance of an army suffering such uncommon hardships and bearing them with the same patience and fortitude.”7

One bright spot for Washington in that winter of unremitting misery was John Marshall. Although only twenty-two years old, Marshall had mastered the power of positive thinking. Throughout his life he exuded joy in living. Nowhere was his good nature needed more than at Valley Forge. When someone suggested a track meet to raise the men’s spirits, John Marshall joined the fun, winning a foot race and surprising everyone by clearing a high jump that exceeded his six-foot two-inch frame. The troops called him “Silver Heels,” apparently because he ran in stockings in which his mother had stitched white heels for identification.8

Washington liked what he heard about Marshall and invited him to join his inner circle of advisors.9 The general named Marshall as a deputy judge advocate to assist at courts-martial.10 Given his other priorities at Valley Forge, Washington probably did not realize that in naming John Marshall as a judge advocate he was introducing the greatest judge in American history.

Others also figured out that Marshall was a good person to resolve disputes. Marshall’s most famous biographer, Albert Beveridge, writes that Marshall was “idolized by the soldiers and brother officers, whose gloomy hours were enlivened by his inexhaustible fund of anecdote[s].”11

Washington was more reserved and aloof by nature and more remote by his position. Perhaps Washington saw in Marshall qualities that he himself lacked: an easy-going manner, unfailing good humor, the ability to put people at ease, and to get along with everyone.

One of the problems that plagued Washington at Valley Forge, and later in the severe winter of 1779-80 in Morristown, was obtaining supplies from the individual states. Marshall never forgot the hardship that he and his fellow soldiers endured because of the reluctance of the colonies to support the army.

According to Leonard Baker, another Marshall biographer, Valley Forge was central to the evolution of Marshall’s political thought, impressing “upon him the need for a strong federal government. He came to believe that the United States must have a central authority with power to enforce the system of law that men democratically arrive at.”12 Beveridge writes: “In his service as a soldier in the war for independence, we find the fountain-head of John Marshall’s national thinking. ... No one can really understand Marshall’s part in the building of the American nation without going back to these sources.’’13

With the arrival of the spring of 1778, Washington drilled his troops in military discipline. But had he instilled in them the will to stand up to the British army?

Confident that his army was ready, Washington was spoiling for a fight. He wanted to show the British that his army, having survived the winter, was equal to the red coats. He also wanted his army to realize that it could hold its own against the enemy. When the British abandoned Philadelphia on June 18, Washington was in hot pursuit. He finally caught up with the British on June 28 in Monmouth County.

Washington’s plan was simple. The army was to engage the British and beat them. Unlike in New Jersey in 1776, the army was not to retreat; unlike in Long Island, it was not to flee. At Monmouth it was to stand and fight.

The battle began early in the morning of June 28. The heat was torrid. It reached ninety-six degrees during the day, and the humidity was high.14 In fact, the combined heat and humidity caused more casualties than enemy bullets.15

This was the setting in which George Washington chose to pit his troops against Britain’s best. Marshall and his father were in the battle from beginning to end. Washington had placed a fellow Virginian, Major General Charles Lee, in charge of the advance guard that was to lead the attack.

When Washington arrived on the scene around 10:00 A.M., however, he could not believe his eyes. The American army was in retreat!

Washington, whose fiery temper was always just beneath the surface, erupted. He rebuked Lee on the battlefield in the presence of the troops, and took command, turning the rout into attack and the attack into victory. Beveridge writes;

Throughout the day Washington was the very soul of battle. His wrath at Lee’s retreat unleashed the lion in him. He rode among the troops inspiring, calming, strengthening, steadying. Perhaps at no time in his life, except at Braddock’s defeat, was his peculiar combination of cool-headed generalship and hotblooded love of combat so manifest in a personal way as on the blazing June day at Monmouth.16

By the end of the day, the British knew they were fighting a different kind of rebel army. The Americans knew they could hold their own against the British. For his part that day, John Marshall was promoted to captain.17

Later that year, Marshall’s enlistment ended, and he returned to Virginia. On the way home, he visited Yorktown. Welcomed as a war hero, he was entertained by Yorktown’s leading families, along with Bushrod Washington, George Washington’s nephew. Bushrod Washington and Marshall belonged to the same circle of Richmond lawyers and worked together in obtaining ratification of the United States Constitution at the Virginia convention. Later, Bushrod Washington would serve with Marshall on the United States Supreme Court, where they became close colleagues.

The unmarried ladies of Richmond were in a tizzy. As Eliza, the eldest of Ambler’s daughters, wrote: “We have been accustomed to hear [Marshall] spoken of by all as a very paragon.... Our expectations were raised to the highest pitch.”18

Beveridge discloses, however, that the young ladies’ hopes were soon dashed:

Great was their disappointment when finally Captain Marshall arrived. [As the women] had looked forward to seeing a handsome, romantic figure, brilliantly apparelled and master of all the pleasing graces. Instead they beheld a tall, loose jointed young man, thin to gauntlessness, whose clothes were hanging about him as if upon a rack, and whose manners were awkward and timid to the point of embarrassment.19

Throughout his career, many an adversary made the same mistake as the Richmond belles. Never a clothes horse, Marshall was casual about his attire. But when he spoke, whether addressing a court, a constitutional convention, or a head of state, the listener soon became blind to Marshall’s attire and heard only the power of his arguments.

Eliza Ambler’s fourteen-year-old sister, Mary, or Polly, as she was called, saw beyond Marshall’s disarming appearance to the man within. She and Marshall fell head over heels in love. A man of passion, Marshall never did anything by half. As Beveridge writes, “Marshall made love as he made war, with all his might.”20

Shortly after meeting Polly, Marshall started law school at William & Mary under the tutelage of George Wythe. His formal legal training lasted only six weeks, during which he was distracted by his infatuation with Polly Ambler. His law school notes reflect his infatuation.

Marshall and Polly Ambler, who was by then sixteen, were married on January 3, 1783. They remained married until her death on December 25, 1831. Ten children were born in the course of the marriage. In contrast, although Martha Washington had four children from a former marriage, George and Martha Washington had no children of their own.
The relationship of George Washington to Martha and that of John Marshall to Polly provide further insight into both men. I have the impression that Washington’s relationship to Martha, like the man himself, was more formal and reserved.

I do not want to leave you with the impression that George Washington and Martha did not have a close relationship, but it lacked the passion of the Marshalls’ marriage. One Washington biographer writes of the correspondence between George and Martha during his many absences that “Martha’s letters [were] more fraught with expressions of friendship than of enamored love. A reader of the romantic order could only have given the sheets ‘warmth’ by setting them on fire.”21 Yet, the same biographer writes of Martha’s visits to Washington at Valley Forge and Newburgh that “for Washington his wife’s visits had an almost magical significance. Mount Vernon had become an inaccessible dream. Mrs. Washington brought with her, in addition to intimate companionship, a feeling of hearth, a sense that he was breathing the air of home.”22

At Mount Vernon, moreover, Martha was more socially adept and graceful than George, who apparently had a low tolerance for small talk. Martha succeeded in convincing George to end his “rigorous avoidance of private society – and at the public entertainments, Martha shone. She not only soothed the men, but charmed the ladies, even the most intellectual and captious.”23

Life was different in the Marshall household. At some point, something went wrong in Polly Marshall’s life. An objective outsider might have seen her as a complaining hypochondriac, but not John Marshall. He continued to see the vivacious young woman he married. Her physical problems seem to relate to her many childbirths. After the birth of her first child in 1784, she is described as a “listless invalid.”24 Her condition worsened to a “deep melancholy” in 1798 with the birth of a son and the death of her father.25 Notwithstanding her physical problems, Polly’s mind remained clear and sharp. Marshall always considered her his closest confidant.

Whatever the cause, Polly became a nervous woman who could not stand noise, a vexing problem for a woman married to a national figure with an active law practice and public life. When Polly suffered one of her nervous attacks, Marshall would keep the children quiet and walk around the house in his stocking feet [so as] not to disturb her.26 On other occasions, he would drive her to her sister’s house and return home to help the household staff in sweeping and mopping the floor.27 On at least one occasion, he spoke to a neighbor about quieting the neighbor’s barking dog.

One biographer writes that “Marshall’s own marriage was the wonder of his friends and relatives. They could not understand how he could live so long and happily with a neurotic semi-invalid. They saw only the querulous, unhappy woman. He saw only the lovely adoring girl whom he had married.”28

The Marshalls remained married until Polly’s death on Christmas day, 1831. A vignette about a locket tells us something of their love for each other. When John Marshall asked Polly to marry him, she became flustered and said “no,” meaning to say “yes.” When Marshall rode away dejected, one of Polly’s cousins snipped a lock of her hair and rode after him. Ever the optimist, Marshall took the lock to mean that “no” meant “yes.” On their wedding day, Polly added a lock of Marshall’s hair to hers and placed both locks in the locket that she wore around her neck for her entire married life. Only on the morning of Polly’s death, when the locket became too heavy around her neck, did Marshall lift it from her and place it around his own neck. There, it remained until the day he died.29

Shortly after John and Polly were married, they built their home in Richmond, which remained Marshall’s primary residence for the rest of his life.

Marshall was a spectacular success as a lawyer. He soon became one of the leaders of the Virginia bar. On several occasions Washington unsuccessfully tried to attract him to government service. Once without first consulting Marshall, Washington appointed him United States Attorney for Virginia. Because of professional and personal commitments, Marshall respectfully declined the appointment.30 On other occasions, Washington unsuccessfully sought to appoint Marshall as Attorney General31 and as Ambassador to France.32 Perhaps the reason that Washington repeatedly turned to Marshall is that Marshall epitomized the ideal public official, not only for the eighteenth century but for the twentieth as well. Maybe Washington saw in Marshall the son he never had.

Unable to attract Marshall to federal service, Washington retained him as his personal lawyer on various matters. In 1788, for example, Washington asked Marshall to clear the title to some land. Marshall optimistically and inaccurately assured his client that clearing title would not be difficult.33 In fact, the dispute, which raged for forty-six years, was not resolved until 1834!34
In another matter, Washington asked Marshall in 1789 to collect on a debt that had been outstanding since 1764.35 The man who was about to become the first president of the United States apparently was in dire financial circumstances.36 Concerning the collection of the debt, Washington cautioned that “[i]f this debt can be recovered without a suit it will be infinitely the most agreeable to me.”37 Not surprisingly, he later wrote that he did not recall many of the circumstances surrounding the debt and charitably instructed Marshall: “I must beg that you not proceed any further in the matter, for however pressing my want of money is at the present I would much rather lose the debt than that the widow and fatherless should suffer by my recovering it.”38

Not until 1797, when President Adams appointed Marshall as one of three commissioners to France in the XY&Z affair did Marshall return to the service of the federal government. The background of the XY&Z affair is that France and England were engaged in a naval war. By this time, however, we were trading with our former enemy, England, to the consternation of our former ally, France. President Adams appointed Marshall and two others to settle the difference with France. Through emissaries, identified as XY&Z, the French foreign minister, Talleyrand, tried to solicit a bribe of $250,000 from the American commissioners, a loan of twelve million dollars to France, and an apology for the United States’ pro-British policies. Compliance would have seen tantamount to capitulation and the sacrifice of American independence.

Marshall and the other commissioners refused. Having stood up to the British army during the revolution, Marshall was not about to bow to French diplomats. Public outrage was vehement. “Millions for defense; not one cent for tribute!” the U.S.A. shouted. Marshall’s role demonstrated not only his moral courage, but also his ability to negotiate with wily and venal diplomats. On his return to the United States, Marshall received a hero’s welcome.39

Correspondence between Marshall and Washington while Marshall was in Europe and Washington was at Mount Vernon show the deepening relationship between the two men. Between the lines of their lengthy letters, one sees their mutual respect and affection. Marshall sent Washington at least three letters describing his impressions of Europe and the political situation in France.40 Washington replied with letters that touched not only on domestic and European politics, but also included “news from home” about the weather, ice that impeded river navigation, and wheat and corn crops.41 In a sense, by sustaining Marshall’s spirits with news of home, Washington was repaying Marshall for his efforts in sustaining the spirit of the troops at Valley Forge.

In one letter, Marshall catalogs constitutional violations he has witnessed.42 Marshall wrote to Washington, “indeed sir the constitution has been violated in so many instances that it would require a pamphlet to detail them. The detail would be unnecessary for the great principle seems to be introduced that the government is to be administered according to the will of the armies & not according to the will of the nation.”43 Thus, Marshall’s venture into foreign relations, like his participation in the revolution, convinced him of the need for a strong central government and of vigilant protection of constitutional rights.
At Washington’s urging, Marshall ran for Congress and took his seat in 1799, where his leadership soon propelled him to national attention. Shortly thereafter, Washington died. Marshall introduced the resolutions that called for official mourning.44

Shortly after Washington’s death, Bushrod Washington persuaded Marshall to write the official biography of George Washington. Marshall’s enthusiasm for the task proceeded not only from his admiration of George Washington, but also from his pressing need for money to pay the balance of the purchase price of some real estate. Apparently, however, Marshall was unfamiliar with the exhausting toil of historical research. He both underestimated the time needed to write the biography and overestimated the sales it would produce. Marshall did not finish the final volume until 1807, after he had become Chief Justice of the United States. The biography received mixed reviews, and, as Beveridge writes, “when anybody praised it, [Marshall] was appreciative as a child.”45

In the year following Washington’s death, 1800, President Adams appointed Marshall as Secretary of War, an appointment that Marshall declined, and then as Secretary of State. Then, in 1801, as Adams’s term was coming to an end, he nominated Marshall as the fourth Chief Justice of the United States.

On the significance of Marshall’s appointment, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. later wrote: “If American law were to be represented by a single figure, skeptic and worshipper alike would agree without dispute that the figure would be one alone, and that one, John Marshall.”46

For thirty-four years, Marshall served as Chief Justice, during which he wrote 519 of the Court’s 1,215 opinions. His opinions defined the constitutional limits of the legislative and executive branches of government, confirmed the supremacy of the federal government in areas such as interstate commerce, and transformed the Supreme Court from an insignificant third branch of government into the respected tribunal as we know it.

When Marshall became Chief Justice, the Court, as one biographer writes, “could hardly be less important than it was.”47 The Court’s authority was largely untested. Likewise, the Constitution was undefined and existed essentially on paper. The Court had no quarters of its own. Instead it held court in a 24 x 30 foot unused Senate committee room.48

We can draw a rough parallel between the undefined status of the Supreme Court when Marshall became Chief Justice and the uncertain future of the United States when Washington became president. Just as the Court had no home of its own when Marshall became Chief Justice, when Washington left for his inauguration in New York, the still unorganized federal government had not set up a presidential residence.

The task confronting Washington was much greater than that confronting Marshall. Washington had to organize the first executive branch of government and establish a working relationship with Congress – a task that confronts every president.
The measure of an appellate judge is the judge’s opinions. In fairness to Marshall, I should spend much more time in discussing his opinions. In fairness to you, however, I shall confine myself to just one opinion.

That opinion, Gibbons v. Ogden,49 has special significance for the entire United States, New Jersey in particular, and even more particularly for Morris County.

By way of background, you may recall that one of the reasons that the individual states banded together in 1787 was to facilitate commerce among the several states.

Accordingly, the interstate commerce clause of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”50 That clause establishes our country as a national marketplace.

In Gibbons v. Ogden, John Marshall recognized the supreme power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The plaintiff in that case was Thomas Gibbons, who, with the help of his son, William, challenged an exclusive franchise granted by the State of New York to the defendant, William Ogden, to operate a ferry between New York and New Jersey. As an aside, Thomas Gibbons hired as the captain of his ferry a brash young man, Cornelius Vanderbilt, who later became embroiled with Daniel Drew, the founder of Drew University, for the control of the Erie. Railroad. Thomas Gibbons challenged New York’s right to control commerce, the operation of the ferry boats, between the two states. In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Court ruled that only Congress could regulate interstate commerce. This decision, as Beveridge wrote, did “more to knit the American people into an indivisible nation than any other one force in our history, excepting only war.”51

Here is why the opinion is of special interest to Morris County. Eight years after the decision, William Gibbons, who had become more interested in racing horses than ferry boats, bought the tract on which Drew is now located for a pasture for his stable of horses. Just to round out the story, Cornelius Vanderbilt’s daughter, Florence Twombly, later purchased the land on which Fairleigh Dickinson University is located. Who knows? If Cornelius Vanderbilt had continued working for the Gibbons family, instead of two universities, Fairleigh Dickinson and Drew might be one super-university.

Like Washington, Marshall had more than a theoretical interest in canals. In 1812, the Virginia General Assembly appointed Marshall chairman of a commission to determine the feasibility of establishing a canal system linking the eastern and western sections of the Commonwealth. At age fifty-six, Marshall led a six-week expedition starting at the James River and proceeding through the Blue Ridge and Allegheny Mountains. The commission report inspired the construction of a canal along what is now the route of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway.52

As early as 1754, Washington had evinced an interest in developing a Potomac Canal for commercial purposes.53 After the revolution and before he became president, Washington devoted considerable time and energy to the development of canals in Virginia.54 In fact, he served as president of the Potomac Company and a shareholder in the James River Company, both of which tried, without notable success, to build canals.55 Both Washington and Marshall saw canals as a means of expanding westward.56

Some think Washington even became a bit of a boor on the subject. He alternately bored visitors by quoting mileage tables on his proposed Potomac Canal and then startled them by jumping into a canoe to ride down the rapids to discover the ebb and flow of the currents in the Potomac.57

Had he been alive, Washington would have approved heartily of Marshall’s opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden. One reason Washington supported a strong national government is because he believed that canals would never be built if the individual states had a veto power over the separate parts of a canal system that ran within their borders.58

As the years passed, Marshall took on mythical proportions in the eyes of the nation. Yet, he always retained the common touch. Like many other men in the early 1800’s, John liked to do the family marketing. It gave him a chance to see friends and swap stories.

One familiar story of Marshall’s marketing involves a young man who complained that his mother had told him to buy a turkey, but that he was embarrassed to carry it through the streets of Richmond. Marshall, who was returning home in the same direction, offered to carry the turkey as far as his own home. The young man accepted the offer without realizing the identity of his elderly errand boy. When Marshall arrived at his home, he said “this is where I live.... Can you carry your turkey the rest of the way?” “But this is the home of the Chief Justice of the United States,” the young man stammered. “I know,” replied Marshall with a smile.59

Towards the end of life, Marshall’s rugged strength understandably began to show the signs of age. In his seventy-sixth year, he developed excruciating kidney stones, and consulted the leading surgeon of the time, a doctor with the improbable name of Dr. Philip Physic of Philadelphia. Anesthesia was unknown at that time. Throughout the operation, Marshall demonstrated the same good nature and courage that carried him through the revolution, the XY&Z affair, his legal and political career, and his tenure as Chief Justice.

Beveridge writes:

With anxiety, but calmness and even good humor, Marshall awaited the operation. Just before he went to the surgeon’s table, Dr. Jacob Randolph, who assisted Dr. Physick, found Marshall eating a hearty breakfast. Notwithstanding the pain he suffered, the Chief Justice laughingly explained that, since it might be the last meal he ever would enjoy, he had determined to make the most of it.60

The combination of age, failing health, and the loss of his beloved Polly eventually took their toll, and Marshall died in his eightieth year on July 6, 1835, in Philadelphia. Beveridge writes, “by Marshall’s direction, the last thing taken from his body after he had expired was the locket which his wife had hung about his neck just before she died.”61

If John Marshall were alive today, he would not only admit, but advocate, that George Washington influenced his life and his jurisprudence. Their shared experience in the revolution convinced each of the need for a strong central government. Marshall’s commitment to federal regulation of interstate commerce begins with his interest in canals. Washington shared that commitment. Even more important, the two men shared a vision of the United States and of the rule of law. In this sense, for Marshall and Washington the American Revolution was a struggle against arbitrary authority and for the rule of law.

In summarizing the comparison of George Washington and John Marshall, what can we say? One thought that comes to mind is how fortunate we are that they lived and served the country. In war and peace, each gave himself to the service of his country. Would the United States today be different if it had not been for George Washington and John Marshall? We shall never know for sure. We do know, however, that because of them the people of the United States have enjoyed “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for over two hundred years. Every school child knows of Washington’s unique service to the nation. I hope that these remarks have added to your appreciation of John Marshall’s unique contribution to our national heritage.

ENDNOTES
1. Leonard Baker, John Marshall at 8 (1974).
2. The Diaries of George Washington at 316, 348-49 (John Fitzpatrick ed., 1971).
3. The Papers of George Washington at 553-54 (W.W. Abbott, ed., Confederation Series, 1971).
4. Albert J. Beveridge, The Life of John Marshall, at 71 (1916).
5. Baker, supra. at 38-39.
6. Ibid. at45.
7. Allan Magruder, John Marshall at 19 (1885).
8. Baker, supra. at 47-48.
9. Magruder, supra. at 20.
10. Ibid. at 21.
11. Beveridge, supra./i> at 118.
12. Baker, supra. at 46.
13. Beveridge, supra. at 147.
14. William Ganoe, The History of the United States Army at 63 (1964).
15. Ibid.
16. Beveridge, supra. at 136.
17. Ibid. at 138.
18. Ibid. at 150-51.
19. Ibid. at 151.
20. Ibid. at 163.
21. Thomas Flexner, The Indispensable Man at 167 (1974).
22. Ibid. at 134.
23. Ibid. at 199.
24. Francis Norton Mason,My Dearest Polly at 841 (1961).
25. Ibid. at 113.
26. David Loth, Chief Justice at 186 (1949).
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Beveridge, supra. at 524.
30. The Papers of John Marshall at 41 (Herbert Johnson ed. 1974).
31. Ibid. at 319.
32. Ibid. at 31-34.
33. Ibid. at 5-7.
34. Ibid. at 6 n.6.
35. Ibid. at 17-18.
36. Thomas Flexner, George Washington & The New Nation, at 172 (1970).
37. Marshall Papers, supra. at 17-18.
38. Ibid. at 20.
39. Page Smith, John Adams at 970 (1962).
40. Marshall Papers.supra. at 138-47, 267-71, 399-402.
41. Ibid. at 307-09.
42. Ibid. at 146.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.at 46-47.
45. Beveridge, supra. at 271-72.
46. Oliver Wendell Holmes, John Marshall in History, found in Marshall (Stanley Kutler, ed., 127) (1972).
47. Bill Severn, John Marshall 121 (1969).
48. Ernest Bates, The Story of the Supreme Court 84 (1956).
49. 22 U.S. 1 (9 Wheat.), 6 L. Ed. 23 (1824).
50. U.S. Const.. art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 3.
51. Beveridge, supra. at 430.
52. The Papers of John Marshall at 1807-14 (Univ. of N.C. Press, 1993).
53. Glenn Phelps, George Washington & American Constitutionalism at 84 (1993).
54. Ibid. at 84.
55. Flexner, supra at 77.
56. Phelps, supra. at 77.
57. Flexner, supra. at 81.
58. Phelps, supra. at 77.
59. Baker, supra. at 755.
60. Beveridge, supra. at 522.
61. Ibid. at 588.
(Copyright: Stewart G. Pollock, Mendham, N.J., 1995).