JURIES AND JUDGES VERSUS THE LAW: VIRGINIA FROM THE REVOLUTION TO THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN JOHN MARSHALL AND SPENCER ROANE (JEFFERSONIANS, ANTI-FEDERALISM, FAIRFAX LITIGATION, CONSTITUTION, INDEBTEDNESS)

During the Revolutionary and early national period, a major question was whether America would have a rule of law or a rule of men. This was often a question of who would decide what law would rule. In Virginia, there were a number of answers coming from a range of fractions that represented different interests, ideological perspectives, and geographic regions. Some favored the continuation of power at the local level and looked to their county courts, especially the juries, for protection from the outside world. Some--including Spencer Roane and the Virginia Court of Appeals--expanded the power of the state at the expense of the counties; and others--especially the Marshall Court--expanded the power of the national government in relation to the states. Each party believed that its actions were right and that those of the other parties were tyrannical. The law was often at the center of conflict because it crossed over and blurred the boundaries between governments--particularly through appellate jurisdiction.;Beginning with legal issues that both arose from the Revolution and that centered upon the ratification of the Constitution, this study places in context the debate between John Marshall and Spencer Roane. It concludes neither that Marshall was defeated by Roane, supposedly the leader of a Richmond Junto which controlled the state; nor that the Marshall Court was victorious--in any more than setting precedents--in such cases as Martin v. Hunter's Lessee or Cohens v. Virginia. The work shows that there was a complex mixture of interests, politics, and the law and that there were a number of ways that local juries and judges could frustrate the designs of superior courts, legislatures, and constitutional conventions.