He exposes the myth of southern leniency in appellate homicide decisions and also shows how the southern judiciary contributed to and reflected larger trends in American legal development."--BOOK JACKET.

Historians have long viewed Louisiana as an anomaly in the American judicial system-an eccentric appendage at the mouth of the Mississippi River. The diverse Creole culture and civilian heritage of the state's legal system have led many scholars to conclude that it is an anachronism in American law unworthy of serious attention. Others embrace this tradition and revel in the minutiae of the Pelican State's unique civil law legacy. In From Chaos to Continuity, Mark F. Fernandez challenges both perspectives. Using the innovative methods of the New Louisiana Legal History, he offers the first comprehensive analysis of the role of the courts in the development of Louisiana's legal system and convincingly argues that the state is actually a representative model of American law and justice. Tracing the rise of Louisiana's system from its earliest colonial origins to its closure during Federal occupation in 1862, Fernandez describes the introduction of common law after American takeover of the colony; the chaotic combination of French, Spanish, and Anglo legal traditions; the evolution of that jurisdiction; the role of the courts-especially the state supreme court-in maintaining the mixture; and the judge's proper function in administering justice. According to Fernandez, the challenge of integrating two very different systems of law was not unique to Louisiana. Indeed, most antebellum southern states had legal systems that incorporated important traditional aspects of their colonial legal orders to varying degrees. From Chaos to Continuity liberates Louisiana's legal history from the quirky restraints of the past and allows scholars and students alike to see the state as an integral part of American legal history.

A Rift in the Clouds chronicles the efforts of three white southern federal judges to protect the civil rights of African Americans at the beginning of the twentieth century, when few in the American legal community were willing to do so. Jacob Treiber of Arkansas, Emory Speer of Georgia, and Thomas Goode Jones of Alabama challenged the Supreme Court's reading of the Reconstruction amendments that were passed in an attempt to make disfranchised and exploited African Americans equal citizens of the United States. These unpopular white southerners, two of whom who had served in the Confederate Army and had themselves helped to bring Reconstruction to an end in their states, asserted that the amendments not only established black equality, but authorized the government to protect blacks. Although their rulings won few immediate gains for blacks and were overturned by the Supreme Court, their legal arguments would be resurrected, and meet with greater success, over half a century later during the civil rights movement.

A Companion to American Legal History presents a compilation of the most recent writings from leading scholars on American legal history from the colonial era through the late twentieth century. Presents up-to-date research describing the key debates in American legal history Reflects the current state of American legal history research and points readers in the direction of future research Represents an ideal companion for graduate and law students seeking an introduction to the field, the key questions, and future research ideas

This study is the first to show how state courts enabled the mass expulsion of Native Americans from their southern homelands in the 1830s. Our understanding of that infamous period, argues Tim Alan Garrison, is too often molded around the towering personalities of the Indian removal debate, including President Andrew Jackson, Cherokee leader John Ross, and United States Supreme Court Justice John Marshall. This common view minimizes the impact on Indian sovereignty of some little-known legal cases at the state level. Because the federal government upheld Native American self-dominion, southerners bent on expropriating Indian land sought a legal toehold through state supreme court decisions. As Garrison discusses Georgia v. Tassels (1830), Caldwell v. Alabama (1831), Tennessee v. Forman (1835), and other cases, he shows how proremoval partisans exploited regional sympathies. By casting removal as a states' rights, rather than a moral, issue, they won the wide support of a land-hungry southern populace. The disastrous consequences to Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws, and Seminoles are still unfolding. Important in its own right, jurisprudence on Indian matters in the antebellum South also complements the legal corpus on slavery. Readers will gain a broader perspective on the racial views of the southern legal elite, and on the logical inconsistencies of southern law and politics in the conceptual period of the anti-Indian and proslavery ideologies.