Philip Pendleton Barbour

BARBOUR, PHILIP PENDLETON

Philip Pendleton Barbour, an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was a strong advocate of STATES’ RIGHTS and the STRICT CONSTRUCTION of the Constitution.

The son of a wealthy planter from one of Virginia’s oldest families, Barbour was born May 25, 1783, in Orange County, Virginia. He was educated locally and excelled in languages and classical literature. At seventeen, he became an apprentice to an Orange County lawyer. After less than a year clerking and studying law, Barbour left Virginia for Kentucky, where he practiced law for a short time. In 1801, he returned to Virginia to attend the College of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, where he briefly studied law. A year later, he established a law practice in Orange County, and quickly gained a reputation for his outstanding oratorical abilities in the courtroom. In 1804, he married Frances Johnson, the daughter of a local planter, with whom he had seven children.

Barbour’s family was both socially prominent and politically active. His father, Thomas Barbour, was a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses for many years, and his older brother became a Virginia governor, U.S. senator, and secretary of war under President JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, whose administration Barbour would eventually oppose. Encouraged by his father’s and brother’s successes, in 1812 Barbour ran for and won a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. Two years later, he won a seat in the U.S. Congress and aligned himself with a group of older Republicans who favored strict construction of the Constitution and a limited federal government. Barbour served as Speaker of the House from 1821 until 1823, when he was defeated by HENRY CLAY. In 1824, Barbour chose not to run for reelection to Congress, and returned to Virginia to resume his law practice.

During his career as a practicing attorney, Barbour was involved in a number of important
cases. He argued the state’s position before the U.S. Supreme Court in Cohen v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821), a landmark suit that helped to clarify the role of the federal courts in reviewing state court decisions.
In Cohen the Court held that the federal judiciary
could review cases arising in the state courts
that involved constitutional issues. Though Barbour
lost the case, his vigorous representation
helped to further establish his reputation as a
strong defender of the states against what he
often saw as the growing encroachment of the
federal government.
In 1825, after considering and then declining
an offer from THOMAS JEFFERSON to join the
law faculty at the University of Virginia, Barbour
was appointed to the General Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, a state trial court, where
he served for almost two years. In 1827, at the
urging of his constituents, Barbour ran unopposed
for Congress, though he lost the Speaker’s
race to fellow Virginian Andrew Stevenson. During
his second stint in Congress, Barbour was a
vocal opponent of President Adams, even
though Barbour’s brother James Barbour was a
member of the Adams cabinet. Barbour
objected to the administration’s spending policies
and to the imposition of a tariff in 1828. He
also continued his relentless advocacy of states’
rights and the narrow construction of the Constitution,
introducing an unsuccessful bill in
1829 requiring that five of the seven justices on
the U.S. Supreme Court concur in any decision
involving a constitutional question.
In the late 1820s, Barbour became a strong
supporter of ANDREW JACKSON, who defeated the incumbent Adams in 1828. Barbour was
considered for a position in the Jackson cabinet
but was not appointed. In 1829, Barbour was
chosen president of the Virginia Constitutional
Convention, replacing the ailing JAMES MONROE.
During the sometimes tumultuous convention,
Barbour argued for APPORTIONMENT of
representation based on both white population
and property ownership, and argued that the
latter should be a qualification for the right to
vote. Barbour also sided with the conservative
slaveholders in the eastern part of the state
against citizens in the western part of the state
who, opposed to SLAVERY, eventually formed a
separate state,West Virginia.
Barbour’s unwavering support of Jackson
and his policies earned him an appointment as a
federal judge for eastern Virginia in 1830. In
1832, he was briefly a candidate for vice president
against MARTIN VAN BUREN, even though
Van Buren was Jackson’s choice in his reelection
bid. Barbour soon withdrew his candidacy to
preserve party unity, and threw his support to
Van Buren.
As early as 1831, Barbour was rumored to be
next in line for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court
as soon as Jackson, now in his second term, had
an opportunity to make an appointment.
Nationalists, who disagreed with Barbour’s
states’ rights and strict constructionist views,
opposed Barbour as a possible candidate for the
Court. In 1836 Barbour was nominated to succeed
retiring justice Gabriel Duval, at the same
time that ROGER B. TANEY was nominated as
chief justice and confirmed to succeed JOHN
MARSHALL, also retiring. As expected, Barbour’s
nomination drew criticism, but he was nevertheless
confirmed by a vote of 30–11.
Barbour wrote only a dozen opinions for the
Court. His most important majority opinion
was in City of New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102, 11
Pet. 102, 9 L. Ed. 648 (1837).At issue in Miln was
a New York state law requiring captains of vessels
arriving at ports to provide harbor authorities
with the names, ages, birthplaces, and
occupations of arriving passengers. The Court
considered whether the law was an unconstitutional
invasion of the exclusive federal right to
regulate interstate and international trade. The
Court ruled that the law was a legitimate exercise
of the state’s “police power” to protect the health
and welfare of its citizens. The decision provided
the perfect opportunity for Barbour to expound
upon his states’ rights views. He wrote that the
state not only had the right to impose such laws
but also the “solemn duty . . . to advance the
safety, happiness and prosperity of its people,
and to provide for the GENERAL WELFARE, by any
and every act of legislation, which it may deem
to be conducive to these ends.” The decision
marked a significant departure from the philosophy
of the previous Court, headed by Marshall,
which had emphasized the importance of federal
authority in matters that even indirectly
involved interstate and international commerce.
Though influential,Miln was criticized and limited
by subsequent decisions of the Court.
In February 1841, at age fifty-eight, Barbour
died suddenly of a heart attack. He thus served
only five years on the Court, completing one of
the shortest terms in its history.
FURTHER READINGS
Congressional Quarterly. 1989. Guide to the U.S. Supreme
Court. 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.
Elliott, Stephen P., ed. 1986. A Reference Guide to the United
States Supreme Court. New York: Facts on File.