What do you think?
Rate this book
Conflicting Worlds: New Dimensions of the American Civil War
Justice of Shattered Dreams: Samuel Freeman Miller and the Supreme Court During the Civil War Era
Ross, Michael A.
323 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2003
67 people want to read
About the author
Michael A. Ross
2 books13 followersMichael A. Ross is Professor of History at the University of Maryland.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 30, 2025
Justice Samuel Miller And A Changing America
The evocatively titled "Justice of Shattered Dreams: Samuel Freeman Miller and the Supreme Court during the Civil War Era" (2003) by Michael Ross is a biography of a leading American Supreme Court Justice and a legal and political history of the United States from the Civil War through Reconstruction and the Gilded Age. The author, Michael Ross, associate professor of history at Loyola University, New Orleans, received his law degree from Duke and practiced corporate law briefly before changing his career direction and earning a PhD in history. His changing direction bears a resemblance to that of his subject. Samuel Miller practiced medicine for several years before studying law. Miller became a successful attorney before President Lincoln appointed him to the Supreme Court before he had even met Miller in person.
As Ross points out, Miller (1816 -- 1890) and Lincoln shared similar backgrounds. Both men were born in rural country to poor families. Miller, as did Lincoln, decided early in life that he wanted to escape from a life of grinding agricultural poverty. After winning the opportunity to study medicine, Miller moved to a small Kentucky town, Barbourville, which he thought, mistakenly, had a great future ahead of it. During his Barbourville years, Miller became a lawyer. When the community became economically depressed, Miller moved with his family to another town, Keokuk, Iowa, on the Mississippi River which, again, he thought destined for large growth. Highly ambitious, Miller wanted to rise and become wealthy and respected. He accumulated property and a thriving legal practice, together with a wife after the death of his first wife, but Keokuk was a victim of an 1857 depression. Miller became active in Republican Party politics and an early supporter of Lincoln. While not an abolitionist, he opposed the entry of slavery into the territories. Miller, as did Lincoln, saw Republicanism as the party of opportunity, which allowed every individual to rise as far as ambition, talent, and work would allow.
In 1862, Miller became the second of Lincoln's five appointees to the Supreme Court. He served 28 years and was still on the bench at the time of his death in 1890. Lincoln's Court appointees all were strong supporters of Union and of Lincoln's war policies. Beyond that, the Justices differed substantially. As Ross points out, Miller had certain populist strands in his thinking that might not have been Lincoln's. Other long-serving Lincoln appointees, such as Justice Stephen Field, did not share Miller's populism.
Ross' book goes relatively lightly on Miller's personal life. It concentrates instead on his work on the Court and on the changes in America during Miller's long judicial service. Ross describes the course of Supreme Court jurisprudence from the Civil War, where Miller was a solid voice in support of Lincoln, through the difficulties of Reconstruction, through the growth of corporate America. Ross examines Miller's work during his early years on the Court focusing on his views on the conduct of the war and on civil liberties. The larger part of the book deals with the the impact of the Court's decisions on Southern Reconstruction and with the Court's emerging views on economic regulation and on what attorneys call substantive due process.
Miller's most famous decision, still studied at length by scholars and law students, is the "Slaughter-House" case decided in 1873, which became the leading case on interpreting the scope of the 14th Amendment. Miller sustained an act by a Reconstruction-constituted local government to require that livestock be taken to a facility located outside the city of New Orleans for butchering, rather than to have the process done randomly throughout the city streets. He read the 14th Amendment narrowly to reject the claims of the butchers. There is strong language in Miller's opinion about the Amendment's role in protecting the role of the Freedpeople (as opposed to the businesses challenging the local law in the case.) But Miller's decision became known for eviscerating the 14th Amendment and for limiting its use for many years in protecting the rights of the former slaves. Ross discusses the many ambiguities in this celebrated case and in Miller's majority opinion. He also discusses several other Reconstruction-era cases and activities, including Miller's role in the disputed presidential election of 1876 which brought an end to Reconstruction.
The other focus of Ross' study is economics and business. While in Iowa, Miller had taken cases against the railroads and other large creditors. He sought, usually unsuccessfully, to have municipalities such as Keokuk repudiate or readjust bond debt which could not be repaid due to economic depression. During his tenure on the Court, Miller remained highly critical of legal attempts to protect bondholders at the expense of other interests. He also became disillusioned with large-scale Eastern capitalism. Miller never abandoned the commitment to the entrepreneurial, individualistic spirit of his youth. He came to believe that the concentration of wealth in a few hands was stifling to the individual spirit. Miller wrote extensively on economic issues during his years on the Court, most of the time in dissent.
For Ross, Miller is a Justice of "Shattered Dreams" because the United States when Miller died in 1890 was a far different country from the United States of 1816. While no egalitarian, Miller's dreams for Reconstruction were shattered when the Federal government withdrew from its role in protecting the Freedpeople and the state governments proved hostile to their rights. Miller's dreams for growth were shattered. He saw an America of small towns and entrepreneurs rather than an America in which the Court became the protector of conservative, corporate capitalism. According to Ross, Miller became pessimistic about his own course and about the course of the nation in the latter years of his life and judicial career.
Ross has written a moving, fascinating book about Justice Miller, the Court, and American history. It is a scholarly study which demands close reading and some prior background in American history during the second half of the Nineteenth Century. The book will appeal to readers with a strong interest in American history of the Reconstruction Era. Lawyers interested in legal history will also benefit from this book. Samuel Miller was a robust, intelligent person and a great Supreme Court Justice. His accomplishments and failings are worth getting to know.
Robin Friedman
The evocatively titled "Justice of Shattered Dreams: Samuel Freeman Miller and the Supreme Court during the Civil War Era" (2003) by Michael Ross is a biography of a leading American Supreme Court Justice and a legal and political history of the United States from the Civil War through Reconstruction and the Gilded Age. The author, Michael Ross, associate professor of history at Loyola University, New Orleans, received his law degree from Duke and practiced corporate law briefly before changing his career direction and earning a PhD in history. His changing direction bears a resemblance to that of his subject. Samuel Miller practiced medicine for several years before studying law. Miller became a successful attorney before President Lincoln appointed him to the Supreme Court before he had even met Miller in person.
As Ross points out, Miller (1816 -- 1890) and Lincoln shared similar backgrounds. Both men were born in rural country to poor families. Miller, as did Lincoln, decided early in life that he wanted to escape from a life of grinding agricultural poverty. After winning the opportunity to study medicine, Miller moved to a small Kentucky town, Barbourville, which he thought, mistakenly, had a great future ahead of it. During his Barbourville years, Miller became a lawyer. When the community became economically depressed, Miller moved with his family to another town, Keokuk, Iowa, on the Mississippi River which, again, he thought destined for large growth. Highly ambitious, Miller wanted to rise and become wealthy and respected. He accumulated property and a thriving legal practice, together with a wife after the death of his first wife, but Keokuk was a victim of an 1857 depression. Miller became active in Republican Party politics and an early supporter of Lincoln. While not an abolitionist, he opposed the entry of slavery into the territories. Miller, as did Lincoln, saw Republicanism as the party of opportunity, which allowed every individual to rise as far as ambition, talent, and work would allow.
In 1862, Miller became the second of Lincoln's five appointees to the Supreme Court. He served 28 years and was still on the bench at the time of his death in 1890. Lincoln's Court appointees all were strong supporters of Union and of Lincoln's war policies. Beyond that, the Justices differed substantially. As Ross points out, Miller had certain populist strands in his thinking that might not have been Lincoln's. Other long-serving Lincoln appointees, such as Justice Stephen Field, did not share Miller's populism.
Ross' book goes relatively lightly on Miller's personal life. It concentrates instead on his work on the Court and on the changes in America during Miller's long judicial service. Ross describes the course of Supreme Court jurisprudence from the Civil War, where Miller was a solid voice in support of Lincoln, through the difficulties of Reconstruction, through the growth of corporate America. Ross examines Miller's work during his early years on the Court focusing on his views on the conduct of the war and on civil liberties. The larger part of the book deals with the the impact of the Court's decisions on Southern Reconstruction and with the Court's emerging views on economic regulation and on what attorneys call substantive due process.
Miller's most famous decision, still studied at length by scholars and law students, is the "Slaughter-House" case decided in 1873, which became the leading case on interpreting the scope of the 14th Amendment. Miller sustained an act by a Reconstruction-constituted local government to require that livestock be taken to a facility located outside the city of New Orleans for butchering, rather than to have the process done randomly throughout the city streets. He read the 14th Amendment narrowly to reject the claims of the butchers. There is strong language in Miller's opinion about the Amendment's role in protecting the role of the Freedpeople (as opposed to the businesses challenging the local law in the case.) But Miller's decision became known for eviscerating the 14th Amendment and for limiting its use for many years in protecting the rights of the former slaves. Ross discusses the many ambiguities in this celebrated case and in Miller's majority opinion. He also discusses several other Reconstruction-era cases and activities, including Miller's role in the disputed presidential election of 1876 which brought an end to Reconstruction.
The other focus of Ross' study is economics and business. While in Iowa, Miller had taken cases against the railroads and other large creditors. He sought, usually unsuccessfully, to have municipalities such as Keokuk repudiate or readjust bond debt which could not be repaid due to economic depression. During his tenure on the Court, Miller remained highly critical of legal attempts to protect bondholders at the expense of other interests. He also became disillusioned with large-scale Eastern capitalism. Miller never abandoned the commitment to the entrepreneurial, individualistic spirit of his youth. He came to believe that the concentration of wealth in a few hands was stifling to the individual spirit. Miller wrote extensively on economic issues during his years on the Court, most of the time in dissent.
For Ross, Miller is a Justice of "Shattered Dreams" because the United States when Miller died in 1890 was a far different country from the United States of 1816. While no egalitarian, Miller's dreams for Reconstruction were shattered when the Federal government withdrew from its role in protecting the Freedpeople and the state governments proved hostile to their rights. Miller's dreams for growth were shattered. He saw an America of small towns and entrepreneurs rather than an America in which the Court became the protector of conservative, corporate capitalism. According to Ross, Miller became pessimistic about his own course and about the course of the nation in the latter years of his life and judicial career.
Ross has written a moving, fascinating book about Justice Miller, the Court, and American history. It is a scholarly study which demands close reading and some prior background in American history during the second half of the Nineteenth Century. The book will appeal to readers with a strong interest in American history of the Reconstruction Era. Lawyers interested in legal history will also benefit from this book. Samuel Miller was a robust, intelligent person and a great Supreme Court Justice. His accomplishments and failings are worth getting to know.
Robin Friedman
June 25, 2011
"'[I]t was fortunate [I] was born poor, as otherwise [I] would never have worked.'" (quoting Miller of himself, 1)
"Chase's first thought upon meeting 'any man of force,' Miller believed, was 'invariably how I can use him for my Presidential aspirations.'" (quoting Miller of Chase, 93-4)
"'The pretense,' Miller acerbically noted, 'is that the negro won't work without being compelled to do so, and this pretence is made in a country and by the white people, where the negro has done all the work for four generations, and where the white man makes a boast of the fact that he will not labor.'" (quoting Miller, 115)
"New Orleans, Miller said, 'is delivered over to yellow fever ... and folly.'" (quoting Miller on post-Slaughterhouse developments, 210)
"'Never walk when you can ride, never sit when you can lie down.'" (quoting Miller's "life motto," 211)
"Chase's first thought upon meeting 'any man of force,' Miller believed, was 'invariably how I can use him for my Presidential aspirations.'" (quoting Miller of Chase, 93-4)
"'The pretense,' Miller acerbically noted, 'is that the negro won't work without being compelled to do so, and this pretence is made in a country and by the white people, where the negro has done all the work for four generations, and where the white man makes a boast of the fact that he will not labor.'" (quoting Miller, 115)
"New Orleans, Miller said, 'is delivered over to yellow fever ... and folly.'" (quoting Miller on post-Slaughterhouse developments, 210)
"'Never walk when you can ride, never sit when you can lie down.'" (quoting Miller's "life motto," 211)
May 24, 2017
Justice of Shattered Dreams is much more than a biography. Like the studies of political power by Robert Caro, Ross examines the outside influences contributing to Miller's reasoning. His family, hometown, move to Iowa, witness to national events, and ascension to the Supreme Court play a role in the decisions he made later on in life. Among the more interesting side stories are Johnson's presidency, the Slaughter-House cases, and the rise and fall of Keokuk, IA during the 19th Century. Biography, economics, finance, and business are fused together to make a wonderful study of a Supreme Court justice and how the Court functioned/s. Ross also touches on Reconstruction and how the those opposed tried to twist the 14th Amendment in order to aid segregational causes and start an eventual return to the Old Southern order.
This was a very interesting read.
This was a very interesting read.
February 15, 2016
Interesting take on Justice Miller and especially the Slaughterhouse Cases. But the book raises more questions than it answers about Miller's jurisprudence, which seems incoherent at the end of the day.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews