Search This Blog

Friday, April 5, 2019

William O. Douglas (Supreme Court Justice)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
William O. Douglas
Justice William O Douglas.jpg

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
In office
April 15, 1939 – November 12, 1975
Nominated byFranklin Roosevelt
Preceded byLouis Brandeis
Succeeded byJohn Paul Stevens
3rd Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission
In office
August 17, 1937 – April 15, 1939
PresidentFranklin Roosevelt
Preceded byJames Landis
Succeeded byJerome Frank
Personal details
Born
William Orville Douglas

October 16, 1898
Maine Township, Minnesota, U.S.
DiedJanuary 19, 1980 (aged 81)
Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.
Political partyDemocratic
Spouse(s)
  • Mildred Riddle
    (m. 1923; div. 1953)
  • Mercedes Hester Davidson
    (m. 1954; div. 1963)
  • Joan Martin
    (m. 1963; div. 1966)
  • Cathleen Heffernan (m. 1966)
Children2
EducationWhitman College (BA)
Columbia University (LLB)

William Orville Douglas (October 16, 1898 – January 19, 1980) was an American jurist and politician who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Nominated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Douglas was confirmed at the age of 40, one of the youngest justices appointed to the court. His term, lasting 36 years and 211 days (1939–75), is the longest in the history of the Supreme Court. In 1975 Time magazine called Douglas "the most doctrinaire and committed civil libertarian ever to sit on the court".

After an itinerant childhood, Douglas attended Whitman College on a scholarship. He graduated from Columbia Law School in 1925 and joined the Yale Law School faculty. After serving as the third chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Douglas was successfully nominated to the Supreme Court, succeeding Justice Louis Brandeis. He was among those seriously considered for the 1944 Democratic vice presidential nomination and was subject to an unsuccessful draft movement prior to the 1948 presidential election. Douglas served on the Court until his retirement in 1975, and was succeeded by John Paul Stevens. Douglas holds a number of records as a Supreme Court Justice, including the most opinions.

Douglas wrote the Court's majority opinion in major cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut, United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., Brady v. Maryland, and Terminiello v. City of Chicago. He wrote notable concurring or dissenting opinions in cases such as Dennis v. United States, Brandenburg v. Ohio, and Terry v. Ohio. He was also known as a strong opponent of the Vietnam War and an ardent advocate of environmentalism.

Early life and education

Douglas was born in 1898 in Maine Township, Otter Tail County, Minnesota, the son of Julia Bickford (Fisk) and William Douglas, an itinerant Scottish Presbyterian minister from Pictou County, Nova Scotia. His family moved to California, and then to Cleveland, Washington. At age two Douglas suffered an illness he described as polio, but which revisionist biographers have claimed was intestinal colic. His mother attributed his recovery to a miracle, telling Douglas that one day he would be President of the United States.

His father died in Portland, Oregon, in 1904, when Douglas was six years old. Douglas later claimed his mother had been left destitute. After moving the family from town to town in the West, his mother, with three young children, settled with them in Yakima, Washington. William, like the rest of the Douglas family, worked at odd jobs to earn extra money, and a college education appeared to be unaffordable. He was the valedictorian at Yakima High School and did well enough in school to earn a full academic scholarship to attend Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington.

While at Whitman, Douglas became a member of Beta Theta Pi fraternity. He worked at various jobs while attending school, including as a waiter and janitor during the school year, and at a cherry orchard in the summer. Picking cherries, Douglas would say later, inspired him to a legal career. He once said of his early interest in the law:
I worked among the very, very poor, the migrant laborers, the Chicanos and the I.W.W's who I saw being shot at by the police. I saw cruelty and hardness, and my impulse was to be a force in other developments in the law.
Douglas was elected Phi Beta Kappa, participated on the debate team, and was elected as student body president in his final year. After graduating in 1920 with a B.A. in English and economics, he taught English and Latin at Yakima high schools for the next two years, hoping to earn enough to attend law school. "Finally," he said, "I decided it was impossible to save enough money by teaching and I said to hell with it."

He traveled to New York (taking a job tending sheep on a Chicago-bound train, in return for free passage), with hopes to attend the Columbia Law School. Douglas drew on his Beta Theta Pi membership to help him survive in New York, as he stayed at one of its houses and was able to borrow $75 from a fraternity brother from Washington, enough to enroll at Columbia.

Six months later, Douglas' funds were running out. The appointments office at the law school told him that a New York firm wanted a student to help prepare a correspondence course for law. Douglas earned $600 for his work, enabling him to stay in school. Hired for similar projects, he saved $1,000 by semester's end. His wife Mildred worked as a schoolteacher to support him throughout law school, which he would later conceal by lying about the year they were married. Douglas graduated second in his class at Columbia in 1925. 

In August 1923, Douglas traveled to La Grande, Oregon, to marry Mildred Riddle, whom he had known in Yakima. After their return to New York, he started work at the firm of Cravath, DeGersdorff, Swaine and Wood (later Cravath, Swaine & Moore).

Yale and the SEC

Douglas quit the Cravath firm after four months. After one year, he moved back to Yakima, but soon regretted the move and never practiced law in the state. After a time of unemployment and another months-long stint at Cravath, he started teaching at Columbia Law School.

Douglas later joined the faculty of Yale Law School. There he became an expert on commercial litigation and bankruptcy, and was identified with the legal realist movement. This pushed for an understanding of law based less on formalistic legal doctrines and more on the real-world effects of the law. While teaching at Yale, he and fellow professor Thurman Arnold were riding the New Haven Railroad and were inspired to set the sign Passengers will please refrain ... to Antonín Dvořák's Humoresque #7. Robert Maynard Hutchins described Douglas as "the most outstanding law professor in the nation". When Hutchins became president of the University of Chicago, Douglas accepted an offer to move there, which he backed out of once he was made a Sterling Professor at Yale.

Politics and government

In 1934, Douglas left Yale to join the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in a political appointee position, having been nominated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. By 1937, he had become an adviser and friend to the President and the SEC chairman. 

During this time, Douglas became friends with a group of young New Dealers, including Tommy "The Cork" Corcoran and Abe Fortas. He was also close, socially and in thinking, with the Progressives of the era, such as Philip and Robert La Follette, Jr., and later with President Kennedy. This social/political group befriended Lyndon Baines Johnson, a freshman Congressman from the 10th District of Texas. In his book The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power, Robert Caro writes that in 1937, Douglas helped persuade President Roosevelt to authorize the Marshall Ford Dam, a controversial project whose approval enabled Johnson to consolidate his power as a congressman.

Supreme Court

Justice William O. Douglas
 
Douglas's Supreme Court nomination
 
In 1939, Justice Louis D. Brandeis retired from the Court, and Roosevelt nominated Douglas as his replacement on March 20. Douglas was Justice Brandeis's personal choice for a successor. Douglas later revealed that his appointment had been a great surprise to him—Roosevelt had summoned him to an "important meeting," and Douglas feared that he was to be named as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on April 4 by a vote of 62 to 4. The four negative votes were all cast by Republicans: Lynn J. Frazier, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Gerald P. Nye, and Clyde M. Reed. Douglas was sworn into office on April 17, 1939. At the age of forty, Douglas was one of the youngest justices to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Relationships with others at Supreme Court

Douglas was often at odds with fellow Justice Felix Frankfurter, who believed in judicial restraint and thought the court should stay out of politics. Douglas did not highly value judicial consistency or stare decisis when deciding cases.

Judge Richard A. Posner, who was a law clerk at the Court during the latter part of Douglas's tenure, characterized him as "a bored, distracted, uncollegial, irresponsible" Supreme Court justice, as well as "rude, ice-cold, hot-tempered, ungrateful, foul-mouthed, self-absorbed" and so abusive in "treatment of his staff to the point where his law clerks—whom he described as 'the lowest form of human life'—took to calling him "shithead" behind his back." Posner asserts also that "Douglas's judicial oeuvre is slipshod and slapdash", but yet, Douglas's "intelligence, his energy, his academic and government experience, his flair for writing, the leadership skills that he had displayed at the SEC, and his ability to charm when he bothered to try" could have let him "become the greatest justice in history."

Judicial philosophy

In general, legal scholars have noted that Douglas's judicial style was unusual in that he did not attempt to elaborate justifications for his judicial positions on the basis of text, history, or precedent. Douglas was known for writing short, pithy opinions which relied on philosophical insights, observations about current politics, and literature, as much as more conventional "judicial" sources. Douglas wrote many of his opinions in twenty minutes, often publishing the first draft. Douglas was also known for his fearsome work ethic, publishing over thirty books and once telling an exhausted secretary (Fay Aull) "If you hadn't stopped working, you wouldn't be tired".

Douglas frequently disagreed with the other justices, dissenting in almost 40% of cases, more than half of the time writing only for himself. Ronald Dworkin would conclude that because Douglas believed his convictions were merely "a matter of his own emotional biases", Douglas would fail to meet "minimal intellectual responsibilities". Ultimately, Douglas believed that a judge's role was "not neutral." "The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people ... "

On the bench Douglas became known as a strong advocate of First Amendment rights. With fellow Justice Hugo Black, Douglas argued for a "literalist" interpretation of the First Amendment, insisting that the First Amendment's command that "no law" shall restrict freedom of speech should be interpreted literally. He wrote the opinion in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949), overturning the conviction of a Catholic priest who allegedly caused a "breach of the peace" by making anti-Semitic comments during a raucous public speech. Douglas, joined by Black, furthered his advocacy of a broad reading of First Amendment rights by dissenting from the Supreme Court's decision in Dennis v. United States (1952), affirming the conviction of the leader of the U.S. Communist Party

In 1944 Douglas voted with the majority to uphold the wartime internment of Japanese Americans, in Korematsu v. United States but, over the course of his career, he grew to become a leading advocate of individual rights. Suspicious of majority rule as it related to social and moral questions, he frequently expressed concern in his opinions at forced conformity with "the Establishment". For example, Douglas wrote the Opinion of the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), explaining that a constitutional right to privacy forbid state contraception bans because "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." This went too far for his old ally Black, who dissented in Griswold. Justice Clarence Thomas would years later hang a sign in his chambers reading "Please don't emanate in the penumbras".

Douglas and Black also disagreed in Fortson v. Morris (1967), which cleared the path for the Georgia State Legislature to choose the governor in the deadlocked 1966 race between Democrat Lester Maddox and Republican Howard Callaway. Whereas Black voted with the majority under strict construction to uphold the state constitutional provision, Douglas and Abe Fortas dissented. According to Douglas, Georgia tradition would guarantee a Maddox victory but he had trailed Callaway by some 3,000 votes in the general election returns. Douglas also saw the issue as a continuation of the earlier decision Gray v. Sanders, which had struck down Georgia's County Unit System, a kind of electoral college formerly used to choose the governor.

Rosenberg case

On June 17, 1953, Douglas granted a temporary stay of execution to Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who had been convicted of selling the plans for the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The basis for the stay was that the Rosenbergs had been sentenced to die by Judge Irving Kaufman without the consent of the jury. While this was permissible under the Espionage Act of 1917, under which the Rosenbergs were tried, a later law, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, held that only the jury could pronounce the death penalty. Since at the time the stay was granted the Supreme Court was out of session, this stay meant that the Rosenbergs could expect to wait at least six months before the case was heard. 

When Attorney General Herbert Brownell heard about the stay, however, he immediately took his objection to Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, who reconvened the Court before the appointed date and set aside the stay. Douglas had departed for vacation, but on learning of the special session of the Court, he returned to Washington. Because of widespread opposition to his decision, Douglas briefly faced impeachment proceedings in Congress, but attempts to remove him from the Court went nowhere.

Vietnam War

Justice Douglas took strong positions on the Vietnam War. In 1952 Douglas traveled to Vietnam and met with Ho Chi Minh. During the trip Douglas became friendly with Ngo Dinh Diem and in 1953 he personally introduced the nationalist leader to Senators Mike Mansfield and John F. Kennedy. Douglas became one of the chief promoters for U.S. support of Diem, with CIA Deputy Director Robert Amory crediting Diem becoming "our man in Indochina" to a conversation with Douglas during a party at Martin Agronsky's house.

After Diem's assassination in November 1963, Douglas became strongly critical of the war, believing Diem had been killed because he "was not sufficiently servile to Pentagon demands." Douglas now outspokenly argued the war was illegal, dissenting whenever the Court passed on an opportunity to hear such claims. In 1968 Douglas issued an order blocking the shipment of Army reservists to Vietnam, before the eight other justices unanimously reversed him.

In Schlesinger v. Holtzman (1973) Justice Thurgood Marshall issued an in-chambers opinion declining a Congresswoman's request for a court order stopping the military from bombing Cambodia. The Court was in recess for the summer but the Congresswoman reapplied, this time to Douglas. Justice Douglas met with the Congresswoman's ACLU lawyers at his home in Goose Prairie, Washington and promised them a hearing the next day. On Friday, August 3, 1973, Douglas held a hearing in the Yakima federal courthouse, where he dismissed the Government's argument that he was causing a "constitutional confrontation" by saying, "we live in a world of confrontations. That's what the whole system is about." On August 4, Douglas ordered the military to stop bombing, reasoning "denial of the application before me would catapult our airmen as well as Cambodian peasants into the death zone."

The U.S. military ignored the new Supreme Court order. Six hours later the eight other justices reconvened by telephone for a special term and unanimously overturned Douglas's ruling.

"Trees have standing"

In his dissenting opinion in the landmark environmental law case, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice Douglas argued that "inanimate objects" should have standing to sue in court:
The critical question of "standing" would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.
He continued:
Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole—a creature of ecclesiastical law—is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases ... So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes—fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it.

Environmentalism

In his autobiographical Of Men and Mountains (1950), Douglas discusses his close childhood connections with nature. In the 1950s, proposals were made to create a parkway along the path of the C&O Canal, which ran on the Maryland bank parallel to the Potomac River. The Washington Post editorial page supported this action. However, Justice Douglas, who frequently hiked on the Canal towpath, opposed this plan, and challenged reporters to hike the 185 mile length of the Canal with him. Following the hike, the Post changed its stance and advocated preservation of the Canal in its historic state. Douglas is widely credited with saving the Canal and with its eventual designation as a National Historic Park in 1971. He subsequently served on the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club from 1960 to 1962 and wrote prolifically on his love of the outdoors. In 1962, Douglas wrote a glowing review of Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, which was included in the widely read Book-of-the-Month Club edition. . He later swayed the Supreme Court to preserve the Red River Gorge in eastern Kentucky, when a proposal to build a dam and flood the gorge reached the Court. Douglas personally visited the area on November 18, 1967. The Red River Gorge's Douglas Trail is named in his honor.

In May 1962,[30] Douglas and his wife Cathleen were invited by Neil Compton and the Ozark Society to visit and canoe down part of the free-flowing Buffalo River in Arkansas. They put in at the low water bridge at Boxley. This experience made him a fan of the river and the young organization's idea of protecting it. Douglas was instrumental in having the Buffalo preserved as a free-flowing river, left in its natural state. This decision was opposed by the region's Corps of Army Engineers. The act that soon followed designated the Buffalo River as America's first National River.[32] Douglas was a self-professed outdoorsman. According to The Thru-Hiker's Companion, a guide published by the Appalachian Long Distance Hikers Association, Douglas hiked the entire 2,000 miles (3,200 km) trail from Georgia to Maine. His love for the environment carried through to his judicial reasoning. 

Due to Douglas' active role in advocating the preservation and protection of wilderness across the United States, he was nicknamed "Wild Bill." Douglas was a friend and frequent guest of Harry Randall Truman, owner of the Mount St. Helens Lodge at Spirit Lake in Washington.

Honors

Presidential politics

When, in early 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt decided not to support the renomination of Vice President Henry A. Wallace at the party's national convention, a short list of possible replacements was drafted. The names on the list included former Senator and Supreme Court Justice James F. Byrnes of South Carolina, former Senator (and future Supreme Court justice) Sherman Minton, former Governor and High Commissioner to the Philippines Paul McNutt of Indiana, House Speaker Sam Rayburn of Texas, Senator Alben W. Barkley of Kentucky, Senator Harry S. Truman of Missouri, and Douglas. 

Five days before the vice presidential nominee was to be chosen at the convention, on July 15, Committee Chairman Robert E. Hannegan received a letter from Roosevelt stating that his choice for the nominee would be either "Harry Truman or Bill Douglas." After Hannegan released the letter to the convention on July 20, the nomination went without incident, and Truman was nominated on the second ballot. Douglas received two votes on the second ballot and none on the first. 

After the convention, Douglas's supporters spread the rumor that the note sent to Hannegan had read "Bill Douglas or Harry Truman," not the other way around. These supporters claimed that Hannegan, a Truman supporter, feared that Douglas's nomination would drive southern white voters away from the ticket (Douglas had a strong anti-segregation record on the Supreme Court) and had switched the names to suggest that Truman was Roosevelt's real choice.

By 1948, Douglas's presidential aspirations were rekindled by Truman's low popularity, after he had succeeded Roosevelt in 1945. Many Democrats, believing that Truman could not be elected in November, began trying to find a replacement candidate. Attempts were made to draft popular retired war hero General Dwight D. Eisenhower for the nomination. A "Draft Douglas" campaign, complete with souvenir buttons and hats, sprang up in New Hampshire and several other primary states. Douglas campaigned for the nomination for a short time, but he soon withdrew his name from consideration. 

In the end, Eisenhower refused to be drafted, and Truman won nomination easily. Although Truman approached Douglas about the vice presidential nomination, the Justice turned him down. Douglas's close associate Tommy Corcoran was later heard to ask, "Why be a number two man to a number two man?" Truman selected Senator Alben W. Barkley and the two won the election.

Impeachment attempts

Political opponents made two attempts to remove Douglas from the Supreme Court, both unsuccessful.

Rosenberg case

On June 17, 1953, Representative William M. Wheeler of Georgia, infuriated by Douglas's brief stay of execution in the Rosenberg case, introduced a resolution to impeach the Justice. The resolution was referred the next day to the Judiciary Committee to investigate the charges. On July 7, 1953 the committee voted to end the investigation.

1970 attempt

Justice Douglas maintained a busy speaking and publishing schedule to supplement his income. He became severely burdened financially due to a bitter divorce and settlement with his first wife. He gained additional financial difficulties after divorces and settlements with his second and third wives.

Douglas became president of the Parvin Foundation. His ties with the foundation (which was financed by the sale of the infamous Flamingo Hotel by casino financier and foundation founder Albert Parvin) became a prime target for then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford. Besides being personally disgusted by Douglas's lifestyle, Representative Ford was also mindful that Douglas protégé Abe Fortas was forced to resign because of ties to a similar foundation. Fortas would later say that he "resigned to save Douglas," thinking that the dual investigations of himself and Douglas would stop with his resignation.

Some scholars have argued that Ford's impeachment attempt was politically motivated. Those who support this contention note Ford's well-known disappointment with the Senate over the failed nominations of Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell to succeed Fortas. In April 1970, Congressman Ford moved to impeach Douglas in an attempt to hit back at the Senate. House Judiciary Chairman Emanuel Celler handled the case carefully and there did not appear to be evidence of any criminal conduct on the part of Douglas. (Attorney General John N. Mitchell and the Nixon administration worked to gather evidence to the contrary.) Congressman Ford moved forward in the first major attempt to impeach a Supreme Court Justice in the modern era. 

The hearings began in late April 1970. Congressman Ford was the main witness, and attacked Douglas's "liberal opinions"; his "defense of the 'filthy' film," the controversial Swedish film I Am Curious (Yellow) (1970); and his ties with the aforementioned Parvin. Douglas was also criticized for accepting $350 for an article he wrote on folk music in the magazine Avant Garde. The magazine's publisher had served a prison sentence for the distribution of another magazine in 1966 that had been deemed pornographic by some critics. Describing Douglas's article, Ford stated, "The article itself is not pornographic, although it praises the lusty, lurid, and risqué along with the social protest of left-wing folk singers." Ford also attacked Douglas for publishing an article in Evergreen Review, which he claimed was known to publish photographs of naked women. The Republican congressmen, however, refused to give the majority Democrats copies of the magazines described, prompting Congressman Wayne Hays to remark, "Has anybody read the article – or is everybody over there who has a magazine just looking at the pictures?"

As it became clear that the impeachment proceedings would be unsuccessful, they were brought to a close and no public vote on the matter was taken.

Around this time, Douglas came to believe that strangers snooping around his Washington home were FBI agents, attempting to plant marijuana to entrap him. In a private letter to his neighbors, he said: "I wrote you last fall or winter that federal agents were in Yakima and Goose Prairie looking me over at Goose Prairie. I thought they were merely counting fence posts. But I learned in New York City yesterday that they were planting marijuana with the prospect of a nice big TV-covered raid in July or August. I forgot to tell you that this gang in power is not in search of truth. They are 'search and destroy' people."

Judicial record-setter

During his tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Douglas set a number of records, all of which stand. He sat on the U.S. Supreme Court for more than thirty-six years (1939–75), longer than any other Justice. During those years, he wrote some thirty books in addition to his opinions and dissenting opinions. He gave more speeches than any other Justice, and his record for sidebar productivity is unlikely ever to be topped. Douglas also holds the record among Justices for having had the most wives (four) and the most divorces (three) while on the bench.

Nicknames

During his time on the Supreme Court, Douglas picked up a number of nicknames from both admirers and detractors. The most common epithet was "Wild Bill", which was in reference to his independent and often unpredictable stances and cowboy-style mannerisms—although many of the latter were considered by some to be affectations for the consumption of the press.

Retirement

Since the 1970 impeachment hearings, Douglas had wanted to retire from the court. He wrote to his friend and former student Abe Fortas: "My ideas are way out of line with current trends, and I see no particular point in staying around and being obnoxious".

At age 76 on December 31, 1974, while on vacation with his wife Cathleen in the Bahamas, Douglas suffered a debilitating stroke in the right hemisphere of his brain. It paralyzed his left leg and forced him to use a wheelchair. Douglas, severely disabled, insisted on continuing to participate in Supreme Court affairs despite his obvious incapacity. Seven of his fellow justices voted to postpone until the next term any argued case in which Douglas's vote might make a difference. At the urging of Fortas, Douglas finally retired on November 12, 1975, after 36 years of service. 

Douglas's formal resignation was submitted, as required by Federal protocols, to his long-time political nemesis, then-President Gerald Ford. In his response, Ford put aside previous differences, and paid tribute to the retiring justice, writing:
May I express on behalf of all our countrymen this nation's great gratitude for your more than thirty-six years as a member of the Supreme Court. Your distinguished years of service are unequaled in all the history of the Court.
Ford also hosted Justice Douglas and his wife Cathleen as honored guests at a White House state dinner later that same month, writing of the occasion later: "We had had differences in the past, but I wanted to stress that bygones were bygones."

Douglas maintained that he could assume judicial senior status on the Court, and attempted to continue serving in that capacity, according to authors Woodward and Armstrong, and refused to accept his retirement, trying to participate in the Court's cases well into 1976, after John Paul Stevens had taken his former seat. Douglas reacted with outrage when, returning to his old chambers, he discovered that his clerks had been reassigned to Stevens, and when he tried to file opinions in cases whose arguments he had heard before his retirement, Chief Justice Warren Burger ordered all justices, clerks, and other staff members to refuse help to Douglas in those efforts. When Douglas tried in March 1976 to hear arguments in a capital-punishment case, Gregg v. Georgia, the nine sitting justices signed a formal letter informing him that his retirement had ended his official duties on the court. Only then did Douglas withdraw from Supreme Court business. One commentator has attributed some of his behavior after his stroke to anosognosia, a neuropsychological presentation which leads an affected person to be unaware and unable to acknowledge disease in himself. It often results in defects in reasoning, decision making, emotions, and feeling.

Personal life

Grave of William O. Douglas at Arlington National Cemetery.

Douglas's first wife was Mildred Riddle, a teacher at North Yakima High School six years his senior, whom he married on August 16, 1923. They had two children, Mildred and William Jr. They were divorced on July 20, 1953. Douglas would not hear about Riddle's death in 1969 because his children had stopped talking to him. William Douglas Jr. became an actor, playing Gerald Zinser in PT 109

On October 2, 1949, Douglas had thirteen of his ribs broken after he was thrown from a horse and tumbled down a rocky hillside. Due to his injuries, Douglas did not return to the court until March 1950, or take part in many of that term's cases. Four months after his return to the court, Douglas had to be hospitalized again due to his being kicked by a horse.

While still married to Riddle, Douglas began openly pursuing Mercedes Hester Davidson in 1951. Other justices at the time kept mistresses as secretaries or kept them away from the Court building according to Douglas's messenger Harry Datcher, but Douglas "did what he did in the open. He didn't give a damn what people thought of him." He divorced Riddle in 1953. Douglas's former friend Thomas Gardiner Corcoran represented Riddle in the divorce, securing alimony with an "escalator clause" that financially motivated Douglas to publish more books. Douglas married Davidson on December 14, 1954.

In 1961, Douglas pursued Joan "Joanie" Martin, an Allegheny College student writing her thesis on him. In the summer of 1963, he divorced Davidson; later that year, at the age of 64, Douglas married 23-year-old Martin on August 5, 1963. Douglas and Martin divorced in 1966. 

On July 15, 1966, Douglas married Cathleen Heffernan, then a 22-year-old student at Marylhurst College. They met when he was vacationing at Mount St. Helens Lodge, a mountain wilderness lodge in Washington state at Spirit Lake, where she was working for the summer as a waitress,. Though their age difference was a subject of national controversy at the time of their marriage, they remained together until his death in 1980.

For much of his life, Douglas was dogged by various rumors and allegations about his private life, originating from political rivals and other detractors of his liberal legal opinions on the Court—often a matter of controversy. In one such instance in 1966, Republican Rep. Bob Dole of Kansas attributed his court decisions to his "bad judgment from a matrimonial standpoint", and several other Republican Members of Congress introduced resolutions in the House of Representatives, though none ever passed, that called for investigation of Douglas's moral character.

Death

Four years after retiring from the Supreme Court, William O. Douglas died at age 81 on January 19, 1980, at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington DC. He was survived by his fourth wife, Cathleen Douglas, and two children, Mildred and William Jr., with his first wife. 

Douglas is interred in Section 5 of Arlington National Cemetery near the graves of eight other former Supreme Court Justices: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Warren E. Burger, William Rehnquist, Hugo Black, Potter Stewart, William J. Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun. Throughout his life Douglas claimed he had been a U.S. Army private, which was inscribed on his headstone. Some historians, including biographer Bruce Murphy, asserted that this claim was false, although Murphy later added, according to Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane, that Douglas's "career on the court makes it 'appropriate' " that he be buried in Arlington Cemetery.

Lane engaged in further research — consulting applicable provisions of the relevant federal statutes, locating Douglas's honorable discharge and speaking with Arlington Cemetery staff. Records in the Library of Congress showed that from June to December 1918, Douglas served as (what the War Department's regulations termed) "a soldier in the Army of the United States ... placed upon active-duty status immediately." Tom Sherlock, Arlington's official historian, told Lane that an "active-duty recruit whose service was limited to boot camp [at which Douglas served] would qualify" to be buried in Arlington. Lane therefore concluded, "Legally, then, Douglas may have had a plausible claim to be a 'Private, U.S. Army,' as his headstone at Arlington reads."

Legacy and honors

Theater

Mountain-The Journey of Justice Douglas is a play written by Douglass Scott which explores the life of William O. Douglas.

Bibliography

The papers of William O. Douglas from his career as professor of law, Securities and Exchange commissioner, and associate justice of the United States Supreme Court were bequeathed by him to the Library of Congress.

Civil Disobedience (Thoreau)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience) is an essay by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849. In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican–American War (1846–1848).

Title

In 1848, Thoreau gave lectures at the Concord Lyceum entitled "The Rights and Duties of the Individual in relation to Government". This formed the basis for his essay, which was first published under the title Resistance to Civil Government in an 1849 anthology by Elizabeth Peabody called Æsthetic Papers. The latter title distinguished Thoreau's program from that of the "non-resistants" (anarcho-pacifists) who were expressing similar views. Resistance also served as part of Thoreau's metaphor comparing the government to a machine: when the machine was producing injustice, it was the duty of conscientious citizens to be "a counter friction" (i.e., a resistance) "to stop the machine".

In 1866, four years after Thoreau's death, the essay was reprinted in a collection of Thoreau's work (A Yankee in Canada, with Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers) under the title Civil Disobedience. Today, the essay also appears under the title On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, perhaps to contrast it with William Paley's Of the Duty of Civil Obedience to which Thoreau was in part responding. For instance, the 1960 New American Library Signet Classics edition of Walden included a version with this title. On Civil Disobedience is another common title. 

The word civil has several definitions. The one that is intended in this case is "relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state", and so civil disobedience means "disobedience to the state". Sometimes people assume that civil in this case means "observing accepted social forms; polite" which would make civil disobedience something like polite, orderly disobedience. Although this is an acceptable dictionary definition of the word civil, it is not what is intended here. This misinterpretation is one reason the essay is sometimes considered to be an argument for pacifism or for exclusively nonviolent resistance. For instance, Mahatma Gandhi used this interpretation to suggest an equivalence between Thoreau's civil disobedience and his own satyagraha.

Background

The slavery crisis inflamed New England in the 1840s and 1850s. The environment became especially tense after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. A lifelong abolitionist, Thoreau delivered an impassioned speech which would later become Civil Disobedience in 1848, just months after leaving Walden Pond. The speech dealt with slavery, but at the same time excoriated American imperialism, particularly the Mexican–American War.

Summary

Thoreau asserts that because governments are typically more harmful than helpful, they therefore cannot be justified. Democracy is no cure for this, as majorities simply by virtue of being majorities do not also gain the virtues of wisdom and justice. The judgment of an individual's conscience is not necessarily inferior to the decisions of a political body or majority, and so "[i]t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.... Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."[6] He adds, "I cannot for an instant recognize as my government [that] which is the slave's government also."

The government, according to Thoreau, is not just a little corrupt or unjust in the course of doing its otherwise-important work, but in fact the government is primarily an agent of corruption and injustice. Because of this, it is "not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize".

Political philosophers have counseled caution about revolution because the upheaval of revolution typically causes a lot of expense and suffering. Thoreau contends that such a cost/benefit analysis is inappropriate when the government is actively facilitating an injustice as extreme as slavery. Such a fundamental immorality justifies any difficulty or expense to bring it to an end. "This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people."

Thoreau tells his audience that they cannot blame this problem solely on pro-slavery Southern politicians, but must put the blame on those in, for instance, Massachusetts, "who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may... There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them."

He exhorts people not to just wait passively for an opportunity to vote for justice, because voting for justice is as ineffective as wishing for justice; what you need to do is to actually be just. This is not to say that you have an obligation to devote your life to fighting for justice, but you do have an obligation not to commit injustice and not to give injustice your practical support. 

Paying taxes is one way in which otherwise well-meaning people collaborate in in

justice. People who proclaim that the war in Mexico is wrong and that it is wrong to enforce slavery contradict themselves if they fund both things by paying taxes. Thoreau points out that the same people who applaud soldiers for refusing to fight an unjust war are not themselves willing to refuse to fund the government that started the war. 

In a constitutional republic like the United States, people often think that the proper response to an unjust law is to try to use the political process to change the law, but to obey and respect the law until it is changed. But if the law is itself clearly unjust, and the lawmaking process is not designed to quickly obliterate such unjust laws, then Thoreau says the law deserves no respect and it should be broken. In the case of the United States, the Constitution itself enshrines the institution of slavery, and therefore falls under this condemnation. Abolitionists, in Thoreau's opinion, should completely withdraw their support of the government and stop paying taxes, even if this means courting imprisonment.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.... where the State places those who are not with her, but against her,—the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.... Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible.
Because the government will retaliate, Thoreau says he prefers living simply because he therefore has less to lose. "I can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts.... It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case."

He was briefly imprisoned for refusing to pay the poll tax, but even in jail felt freer than the people outside. He considered it an interesting experience and came out of it with a new perspective on his relationship to the government and its citizens. (He was released the next day when "someone interfered, and paid that tax".)

Thoreau said he was willing to pay the highway tax, which went to pay for something of benefit to his neighbors, but that he was opposed to taxes that went to support the government itself—even if he could not tell if his particular contribution would eventually be spent on an unjust project or a beneficial one. "I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually."

Because government is man-made, not an element of nature or an act of God, Thoreau hoped that its makers could be reasoned with. As governments go, he felt, the U.S. government, with all its faults, was not the worst and even had some admirable qualities. But he felt we could and should insist on better. "The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual.... Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly."

An aphorism often erroneously attributed to Thomas Jefferson, "That government is best which governs least...", was actually found in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. Thoreau was apparently paraphrasing the motto of The United States Magazine and Democratic Review: "The best government is that which governs least." Thoreau expanded it significantly:
I heartily accept the motto,—"That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—"That government is best which governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.
— Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

Influence

Mohandas Gandhi

Indian independence leader Mohandas Gandhi (a.k.a. Mahatma Gandhi) was impressed by Thoreau's arguments. In 1907, about one year into his first satyagraha campaign in South Africa, he wrote a translated synopsis of Thoreau's argument for Indian Opinion, credited Thoreau's essay with being "the chief cause of the abolition of slavery in America", and wrote that "Both his example and writings are at present exactly applicable to the Indians in the Transvaal." He later concluded:
Thoreau was a great writer, philosopher, poet, and withal a most practical man, that is, he taught nothing he was not prepared to practice in himself. He was one of the greatest and most moral men America has produced. At the time of the abolition of slavery movement, he wrote his famous essay On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. He went to gaol for the sake of his principles and suffering humanity. His essay has, therefore, been sanctified by suffering. Moreover, it is written for all time. Its incisive logic is unanswerable.
— "For Passive Resisters" (1907).

Martin Luther King, Jr.

American civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was also influenced by this essay. In his autobiography, he wrote:
During my student days I read Henry David Thoreau's essay On Civil Disobedience for the first time. Here, in this courageous New Englander's refusal to pay his taxes and his choice of jail rather than support a war that would spread slavery's territory into Mexico, I made my first contact with the theory of nonviolent resistance. Fascinated by the idea of refusing to cooperate with an evil system, I was so deeply moved that I reread the work several times.

I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest. The teachings of Thoreau came alive in our civil rights movement; indeed, they are more alive than ever before. Whether expressed in a sit-in at lunch counters, a freedom ride into Mississippi, a peaceful protest in Albany, Georgia, a bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, these are outgrowths of Thoreau's insistence that evil must be resisted and that no moral man can patiently adjust to injustice.
— The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Martin Buber

Existentialist Martin Buber wrote, of Civil Disobedience
I read it with the strong feeling that here was something that concerned me directly.... It was the concrete, the personal element, the "here and now" of this work that won me over. Thoreau did not put forth a general proposition as such; he described and established his attitude in a specific historical-biographic situation. He addressed his reader within the very sphere of this situation common to both of them in such a way that the reader not only discovered why Thoreau acted as he did at that time but also that the reader—assuming him of course to be honest and dispassionate– would have to act in just such a way whenever the proper occasion arose, provided he was seriously engaged in fulfilling his existence as a human person. The question here is not just about one of the numerous individual cases in the struggle between a truth powerless to act and a power that has become the enemy of truth. It is really a question of the absolutely concrete demonstration of the point at which this struggle at any moment becomes man's duty as man....
— "Man's Duty as Man" (1962)

Others

Author Leo Tolstoy cited Civil Disobedience as having a strong impact on his nonviolence methodology. Others who are said to have been influenced by Civil Disobedience include: President John F. Kennedy, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, and various writers such as, Marcel Proust, Ernest Hemingway, Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis, and William Butler Yeats.

Tax resistance in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tax resistance in the United States has been practiced at least since colonial times, and has played important parts in American history. 

Tax resistance is the refusal to pay a tax, usually by means that bypass established legal norms, as a means of protest, nonviolent resistance, or conscientious objection. It was a core tactic of the American Revolution and has played a role in many struggles in America from colonial times to the present day.

In addition, the philosophy of tax resistance, from the "no taxation without representation" axiom that served as a foundation of the Revolution to the assertion of individual conscience in Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, has been an important plank of American political philosophy.

Theory

The theory that there should be "no taxation without representation," while it did not originate in America, is often associated with the American Revolution, in which that slogan did strong duty. It continues to be a rallying cry for tax rebellions today. American Henry David Thoreau's theory of civil disobedience has proven to be extremely influential, and its influence today is not limited to tax resistance stands and campaigns but to all manner of refusal to obey unjust laws. These are among the theories of tax resistance that have taken on a particularly American flavor and have animated and inspired American tax resisters and tax resistance campaigns.

No taxation without representation

In English political philosophy of the late 18th century, the theory was prominent that in order for the sovereign to exact a tax on a population, that population must be represented in a legislature that had the sole power to levy the tax. That theory was made axiomatic in the form of the slogan "no taxation without representation" (and similar expressions).

The American colonies did not have representatives in the British parliament, and so this axiom became a useful platform for colonial rebels to justify their rebellion against direct taxes imposed by the crown.

The standard-issue District of Columbia license plate bears the phrase, "Taxation Without Representation".
 
The "no taxation without representation" slogan was brought to bear in the arguments for tax resistance by African-Americans and by American women who did not have the right to vote or serve in the legislature. It is used today by the District of Columbia as part of a complaint that residents of the district have no (voting) Congressional representatives. 

The phrase has such potent currency in American thought that it is frequently used today in the context of tax debates that have little to do with legislative representation, at least in the way that the original coiners of the phrase would have understood: For example, complaints that Congressional representatives only represent certain special interests, or that the complainer doesn't feel that his or her point of view is represented in legislative debates or actions.

Civil disobedience

Henry David Thoreau's 1849 essay On Resistance to Civil Government — now usually referred to as Civil Disobedience — is part of the canon of American political philosophy. It was prompted by Thoreau's refusal to pay a poll tax because of unwillingness to support a government that was enforcing the slavery of Americans and what he felt was an unjust war against Mexico.

Thoreau argued that obedience to government is often misplaced, and that people should develop and trust their own consciences rather than use the law as a crutch.

Thoreau's philosophy has inspired many tax resisters since, especially those who have acted individually (not as part of a tax strike or other large-scale movement) and from motives of conscientious objection.

Conscientious objection to military taxation

The theory that taxpayers become complicit in the actions of their government when they pay for the government's functioning and requisitions through their taxes, and that therefore one must scrutinize the actions of the government and refuse to pay for them if they become grossly immoral, is key to the war tax resistance practiced by American Quakers since colonial times. It also forms an important philosophical basis for other religious and secular American war tax resisters down to the present day. 

War tax resisters in the United States pioneered the idea that conscientious objection to military taxation ought to be a legally protected right: that is, taxpayers who are morally opposed to taking part in war should not be forced to fund war, just as governments often permit such people to avoid military conscription. 

This theory has been extended by people who oppose other aspects of government funding. A few have refused to pay taxes on the grounds that some government health spending goes to institutions that provide abortions. A number of Amish people refused to pay taxes for government social insurance programs on conscientious grounds.

Taxation as theft

A demonstrator at a "Tax Day" demonstration in Cincinnati, Ohio, holds a sign reading "taxation is theft"
 
The theory that taxation is ethically indistinguishable from robbery is a staple of American anarchist and (often) libertarian thought. American anarchist philosopher Lysander Spooner put it this way:
Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions… Taking a man's money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.
— Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (1869)
The original U.S. Libertarian Party platform (1972) agreed that taxation was always a violation of the rights of the individual:
Since we believe that every man is entitled to keep the fruits of his labor, we are opposed to all government activity which consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from citizens in violation of their individual rights. Specifically, we support the eventual repeal of all taxation. We support a system of voluntary fees for services rendered as a method for financing government in a free society.

Tax protester theories

An enduring mythology of tax protester arguments asserts that the tax system operating in the United States is unconstitutional, illegal, or doesn't actually apply to most of the people currently being subjected to it. 

These arguments, though they often take the form of "totally discredited legal positions and/or meritless factual positions," are often persuasive to people who have an unsophisticated understanding of the legal system and who are susceptible to look uncritically on arguments that appeal to their financial self-interest. For example, in the early 1980s, an epidemic of tax protest swept General Motors plants in Flint, Michigan, as thousands of employees there told GM to stop withholding income tax from their salaries after they attended seminars or listened to lectures on tape from the tax protester group “We The People ACT.”

Practice

The following sections briefly describe some of the more prominent examples of tax resistance in colonial America and the United States:

Quaker conscientious objection to military taxation

The Society of Friends (Quakers) had a tradition of refusing to pay tithes to the establishment church, and of refusing to pay explicit war taxes, from the early years of the establishment of the sect.

When Quakers were permitted to establish an American colony, Pennsylvania, that they could run to some extent on their religious principles, the Pennsylvania Assembly often offered some resistance to attempts by the crown to exact money from the colony for the purposes of military defense.

During the French and Indian war, the Pennsylvania colonial assembly conceded, and began raising a tax from Pennsylvania residents for military fortifications. This led to some, including influential Quakers John Woolman and Anthony Benezet, refusing to pay such taxes for reasons of conscientious objection.

This stand, and the eloquence the resisters employed to explain it, proved influential, and a Quaker tradition of war tax resistance has waxed and waned through American history to the present day.

Colonial resistance

A typical American colonial government was headed by a governor, who was appointed by the Crown and meant to represent the interests of the home country, and a colonial assembly, elected by the colonists themselves. The two not infrequently came into conflict over issues of taxation, and when the governor assumed the right to tax colonists without the consent of their legislature, this conflict might result in tax resistance. 

This happened for example in 1687 when New England governor Edmund Andros attempted to assess a new tax. Colonists declared their unwillingness to pay such a tax, were imprisoned on orders of the governor, and this ultimately led to the 1689 Boston revolt in which Andros was overthrown. This muscle-flexing by American colonists was an important precursor of the American Revolution, such that Ipswich, where a declaration defying the tax was signed, bills itself as "The Birthplace of American Independence 1687".

The War of the Regulation in colonial North Carolina was another important precursor of the American Revolution. Colonists, fed up with what they viewed as a corrupt and unrepresentative colonial government, stopped paying taxes and ultimately rose in an armed revolt. In this case it was the entire government — the governor, the assembly, and the corrupt bureaucracy — that was the target of the rebellion.

Independence-minded colonials used a variety of tactics to increase the economic independence and self-reliance of the colonies while denying economic resources to the Crown. This included rampant smuggling and attacks on British customs ships (as in the Gaspee Affair), the refusal to allow British monopoly products to be brought to market (as in the Boston Tea Party and Philadelphia Tea Party), boycotts of British-manufactured goods and the encouragement of local production of replacement goods, and sanctions ranging from social boycott to violent attacks aimed at tax collectors and collaborators. The success of measures like these led John Adams to assert that the American Revolution had already been accomplished before the Revolutionary War began — that the war was less a revolution than a failed counterrevolution.

Resistance in the post-revolutionary period

After the success of the American Revolution, the independent United States government of the former colonies was confronted by its own tax resistance campaigns. Three were suppressed militarily by the fledgling United States government:

Shays' Rebellion

Massachusetts farmers were motivated in part by increased taxes and heavy-handed tax enforcement when they rose up in Shays' Rebellion. They took action against government agencies that were enforcing tax seizures, preventing their operation, until the suppression of the rebellion.

The Whiskey Rebellion

Farmers far from coastal ports and population centers would often ferment and distill their grain into whiskey locally because it was more economic to bring whiskey to market than grain, from the point of view of transportation costs. Thus, when United States government put an excise tax on whiskey, this was seen as an imposition by coastal elites at the expense of rural farmers and was widely resented and resisted.

While resistance in the form of refusal to pay the excise tax or to cooperate in the enforcement of excise laws persisted and largely succeeded in some areas, in Western Pennsylvania this resistance erupted into attacks on tax collectors and eventual armed revolt — the Whiskey Rebellion — which was violently suppressed by federal government troops under the command of former revolutionary war commander in chief George Washington.

Fries's Rebellion

Fries's Rebellion began in opposition to a federal window-tax instituted by the Adams administration, with resisters impeding the tax assessors and refusing to pay the assessed taxes. This resistance movement, too, was successfully suppressed by the federal government when it rose to the level of armed rebellion.

Native / immigrant conflicts

The United States government is largely run by and on behalf of the European immigrant community, while United States territory also encompasses the land of native people, some of whom live in separate sovereign or semi-sovereign nations. Conflicts periodically erupt over who could tax whom.
In the late-19th century, such conflicts led to tax resistance, for example from thousands of people of part-native ancestry in Dakota territory who forced the tax collector to retreat without his prize, from Crow in Montana who refused to pay for several years until the government there confiscated their livestock, or from non-native residents of Oklahoma Territory who wanted to be free from Cherokee Nation taxes.

Such conflicts continued into the 20th century. For example Wallace "Mad Bear" Anderson led a tax resistance campaign of the Tuscarora Nation in 1959 in which they refused to pay state income tax, publicly destroyed tax summonses, and engaged in sit-ins and other such protests. Members of the Seneca Nation blocked the Southern Tier Expressway in New York to protest the state's attempt to extend a state sales tax to them in 1992. When members of the Iroquois Confederacy blocked roads in a similar conflict in 1997, law enforcement responded with brutal violence (the state would eventually pay out $2.7 million to victims).

African-Americans

Tax resistance has occasionally been deployed in the battle for civil rights for black people in the United States. For example: 

The "no taxation without representation" argument was evoked by African-American businessman Paul Cuffee, who refused to pay his state taxes and petitioned the legislature in 1780 and 1781 on behalf of himself and other African-Americans, saying "we apprehend ourselves to be aggrieved, in that… we are not allowed the privilege of freemen of the State, having no vote or influence in the election of those that tax us."

Robert Purvis refused to pay a school tax in Philadelphia in 1853, on the grounds that his children were not allowed to attend the whites-only schools the tax supported. "I object", he wrote, "to the payment of this tax, on the ground that my rights as a citizen, and my feelings as a man and a parent have been grossly outraged in depriving me, in violation of law and justice, of the benefits of the school system which this tax was designed to sustain."

Undermining Reconstruction state governments

After the American Civil War, the United States government established Reconstruction era governments in the states of the former Confederacy that included black and carpetbagger representatives. The loss of political power by the formerly dominant white supremacists led to resentment, protest, and the formation of paramilitaries and parallel governments. Occasionally, tax resistance was used as a tactic to withdraw financial support and political legitimacy from the reconstruction governments in favor of the white supremacist parallel governments. 

For example, tax resistance was used as a tactic by South Carolina Democrats in the months leading up to the collapse of the carpetbagger administration of Republican Daniel Chamberlain and his replacement by former Confederate Army officer Wade Hampton III.

White supremacist gubernatorial candidate John McEnery established a parallel government in Reconstruction Louisiana, in opposition to the carpetbagger government of governor William Pitt Kellogg, and urged sympathetic citizens to pay taxes to his government rather than the Kellogg "usurpation."

Railroad bond shenanigans

In the 1870s a number of American localities were victims of railroad bond swindles. Promoters would ask the residents to vote to issue bonds to pay for the running of a railroad line to their area, these bonds being backed by the local tax base. In theory the economic growth that would come from the new rail line would more than pay for the bonds by the time they were mature and the bondholders needed to be paid off. In fact, the railroad never materialized and the bond promoters vanished with the money. 

Some of these localities organized and refused to honor the bonds they had issued. Because by the time the bonds had matured they had likely been sold to new owners who did not participate in the original fraud, the court system was not usually very sympathetic to the defrauded taxpayers. 

But this led to some notable examples of organized tax resistance in the United States.

For instance, in Cass and St. Clair counties, Missouri, local judges were elected who refused to enforce higher court rulings in favor of the bondholders that would have forced the County to inflict a tax in order to pay off the bonds. For a time, the judges held court in a cave in order to evade their eventual jailings for contempt of court.

In Steuben County, New York, the bondholders succeeded in forcing the community to create a property tax to pay off the bonds, but property owners refused to pay the tax and rallied to the support of those whose property was seized for failure to pay, successfully disrupting tax auctions.

In Kentucky, refusal to assess or pay taxes to pay off the bond swindle persisted for decades. Some towns refused to elect sheriffs or public officials of any kind (or no candidates could be found for the positions) so that nobody was legally qualified to assess taxes or engage in property seizures for failure to pay taxes. Local judges went into hiding to evade the rulings of higher courts. Armed citizens intimidated outsiders who tried to come and collect taxes by force.

Women's suffrage

Tax resistance was a less important part of the women's suffrage struggle in the United States than it was in the United Kingdom, but it still played a role and had some notable practitioners.

At the 1852 National Women's Rights Convention, Susan B. Anthony brought forward a tax resistance resolution:
Resolved, That it is the duty of the women of those States, in which woman has now by law a right to the property she inherits, to refuse to pay taxes. She is unrepresented in the Government…
Lucy Stone refused to pay her tax in 1858, on the grounds "that women suffer taxation, and yet have no representation, which is not only unjust to one-half the adult population, but is contrary to our theory of government."

Abby and Julia Smith were landowners in Glastonbury, Connecticut, who found in the 1870s that their property tax assessments kept rising relative to those of the male property owners of the area who could vote in local elections. They responded by refusing to pay taxes on "no taxation without representation" grounds, and their battle soon became a cause célèbre among suffrage activists and sympathizers throughout the country (in part thanks to the sisters' knack for publicity).

Anna Howard Shaw's automobile was sold at tax auction in 1915 in a celebrated tax resistance case. "Dr. Shaw has always believed in the contention of the Colonies that 'taxation without representation is tyranny' and has consistently protested along this line when paying her taxes," she explained.

Tax resistance by newly-enfranchised women in Pennsylvania

As women won the right to vote in the United States, they sometimes also became vulnerable to taxes that had previously only applied to men. When this happened in Pennsylvania, the shock was accompanied by resentment that the school tax in question applied mostly to women living in rural areas and not to those living in the largest Pennsylvania cities. 

This example of American tax resistance is particularly interesting because although it involved thousands of women in many parts of the state and persisted for several years, there is little evidence that the resistance was formally organized, and it wasn't accompanied by much in the way of open protest — no rallies, picket marches, petitions, manifestos, named organizations, political coalitions, or things of that nature. It seems to have been a form of leaderless resistance.

At first the women were emboldened by a quirk in the law that forbade "the arrest or imprisonment for non-payment of any tax of any female or infant or person found by inquisition to be of unsound mind." It took the state legislature a couple of years to update that law after the women's tax resistance began, and several women were eventually jailed, briefly, for their resistance.

"Bond Slackers" during World War 

Although the U.S. government raised some of its war budget via taxes, the most visible public war funding measure during World War Ⅰ was the Liberty Bond program. Citizens were encouraged to loan money to the government for its war effort through the purchase of bonds. 

Although the purchase of bonds was ostensibly voluntary, strong coercive pressure — up to and including mob violence — was directed at those who would not buy. "Bond slackers" (the popular term at the time for people who did not buy war bonds, or did not buy them in sufficient quantity) could be run out of town, might lose their jobs, have their property stolen or vandalized, might be tarred-and-feathered, otherwise tortured, coated in paint, threatened with murder, or subjected to hours of questioning by hooded interrogators in impromptu star chambers in the hopes of prompting them to say something that would incriminate them under the Espionage Act.

Those who resisted such pressure and refused to buy war bonds included conscientious objectors to war such as Jehovah's Witnesses and members of traditional peace churches such as Mennonites, anti-capitalist radicals, and European immigrants from countries the U.S. and its allies were fighting. 

Herbert Lord, Director of Finance for the War Department, considered this "an organized effort to discourage and defeat the loan," and it was attributed to a conspiracy of "pro-German agents."

Property tax strikes during the Great Depression

The Great Depression introduced unprecedented tax burdens to Americans. While real-estate values plummeted and unemployment skyrocketed, the cost of government remained high. As a result, taxes as a percentage of the national income nearly doubled from 11.6 percent in 1929 to 21.1 in 1932. Most of the increase took place at the local level and especially squeezed the resources of real estate taxpayers. Local tax delinquency rose steadily to a record of 26.3% in 1933.

Many Americans reacted to these conditions by forming taxpayers' leagues to call for lower taxes and cuts in government spending. By some estimates, there were three thousand of these leagues by 1933. Taxpayers' leagues endorsed such measures as laws to limit and rollback taxes, lowered penalties on tax delinquents, and cuts in government spending. Partly as a result of their efforts, sixteen states and numerous localities adopted property tax limitations while three states instituted homestead exemptions.

While taxpayers' leagues usually favored traditional legal and political strategies, a few promoted tax resistance. Probably the best known of these was the Association of Real Estate Taxpayers (ARET) in Chicago. From 1930 to 1933, it led one of the largest tax strikes in American history.

ARET functioned primarily as a cooperative legal service. Each member paid annual dues of $15 to fund lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of real-estate assessments. The suits, when finally filed, took the form of a 7,000-page, two-foot-thick book listing the names and tax data for all 26,000 co-litigants.

The radical side of the movement became apparent by early 1931 when ARET called for taxpayers to withhold real-estate taxes (or "strike") pending a final ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court, and later the U.S. Supreme Court. Mayor Anton Cermak and other politicians desperately tried to break the strike by threatening criminal prosecution, revocation of city services, and the seizure of property.

The Association's influence peaked in late 1932, with a membership of near 30,000 people, a budget of over $600,000, and its own radio show. A failed legal suit, government counter-measures, and infighting took their toll and the movement, having in large part accomplished its goals, declined thereafter.

The emergence of a non-sectarian war tax resistance movement

Tax resistance motivated by conscientious objection to war had traditionally been practiced in the United States under the Christian theory of nonresistance as extrapolated by the historic peace churches, and its development had largely taken place within the context of those churches. Rare exceptions included the brief flowering of tax resistance among the New England Transcendentalists like Henry David Thoreau, a small war tax resistance contingent in the late-19th Century pacifist movement, and a few war tax resisters in small sects like the International Bible Students and Rogerenes

After World War Ⅱ, a non-sectarian war tax resistance movement began to come together, and would develop its own practices of war tax resistance under a more secular theory of pacifism

Some of the figures in this early movement were members of the historic peace churches, such as Mary Stone McDowell, a Quaker who had resisted the Liberty Bond drives during World War Ⅰ, but many others were not. Dorothy Day and Ammon Hennacy were from the Catholic Worker movement, Ernest Bromley was a Methodist, Walter Gormly and Maurice McCrackin Presbyterians, Juanita and Wally Nelson non-religious, for example. 

In 1948, the group Peacemakers formed to (loosely) organize this movement. This group would develop a pacifist theory of conscientious objection to military taxation that was not tied to a particular religious doctrine. They published a guide to war tax resistance in 1963 and developed tactics of resistance practice and of publicity that would lead to the growth of the movement, to a new resurgence of war tax resistance among the traditional peace churches, and to the establishment of nonsectarian war tax resistance as an ongoing part of the American scene.

Foes of social security taxation

The United States Social Security program had its share of critics and faced political opposition. It also evoked some tax resistance against the payroll and self-employment taxes that funded it. This came from two factions in particular: conservatives who opposed the government program for ideological reasons, and Amish who had religious prohibitions against participating in insurance programs in general.

Conservative opposition

American conservatives who refused to pay payroll or self-employment taxes for the social security program expressed their opposition in terms of opposing government overreach into private lives and contracts, and opposition to socialism. "For those of us who still have confidence in our own ability," one wrote, "such a socialistic thing should not be forced upon us."

About a dozen women from around Marshall, Texas organized in 1951 to refuse to submit Social Security taxes on behalf of their domestic help. "It's not the money, it's the principle," said spokesperson Carolyn M. Abney. "That law is unconstitutional."
It is a violation of the sanctity of the American home. The law violates a basic American freedom. Already business has been socialized and the American home is the last stronghold against socialism. This may sound dramatic, but we are fighting to preserve the freedoms our forefathers gave to us.
— Carolyn M. Abney, in "Texas Housewives to Press Social Security Test Case". Reading Eagle. 1952-07-01.
The "Texas Housewives" (as they were invariably called in the newspapers) lost a court case in 1952. They appealed on 13th Amendment grounds; that's the amendment that bans involuntary servitude — their attorney explained that the law "forces these housewives to be unpaid tax collectors for the government." They lost this case as well, and in 1954 they failed in an attempted Supreme Court appeal. Meanwhile the government seized the resisted money from their bank accounts. 

The women continued to defy the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) for some time after, claiming that the courts had not answered the Constitutional question but had only verified the tax statute. They eventually gave up the fight and began to pay the required quarterly taxes for their employees.

Mary Cain refused to pay $42.87 in self-employment tax in 1952 and hid her assets to make sure the government would have to make it a criminal matter (and thus a possible test case) rather than a simple civil asset seizure. In the case that eventually resulted, Cain's arguments were turned down by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and she had no luck with a Supreme Court appeal, but the government eventually dropped the case anyway. When the government padlocked the office of her newspaper as part of a seizure process, Cain sawed the lock off the door and mailed it to the I.R.S. defiantly. "I’ve had enough of the New Deal. I’m sick of the whole Truman administration," she said.

Vivien Kellems, who had previously tangled with the government by refusing to withhold income taxes from her employees, refused to pay the self-employment tax on her income in 1952, and recruited a small group of other businesspersons (including Mary Cain) to join her protest. She wrote in a letter to Treasury Secretary John W. Snyder that she felt she already had "adequate insurance" and she urged the government to indict her so that she could be a test case to the Supreme Court.

Conscientious objection from the Amish

The Amish have a strong tradition of mutual aid and believe that purchasing insurance betrays distrust in God's providence and in the community of believers. The original name of the Social Security system was "Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance," and Amish people interpreted it as a forbidden form of insurance.
Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Because of this, when the U.S. government extended the Social Security system to cover farmers in 1955, many Amish refused to participate, and the government responded by seizing their property. After some farmers had bank accounts seized, others closed their accounts. When the government tried to levy checks due to the resisters from the milk processing cooperatives they sold their milk to, the cooperatives (also in Amish hands) refused to hand over the checks.

The government was then reduced to seizing livestock. In a celebrated case in 1961, the government seized Valentine Byler's horses during Spring plowing. Asked about this insensitivity to Byler's livelihood, the district I.R.S. Chief of Collections answered, "Plowing never occurred to me. I live in an apartment." Byler received messages of support from around the country, and the press took up his cause.
What kind of "welfare" is it that takes a farmer’s horses away at spring plowing time in order to dragoon a whole community into a "benefit" scheme it neither needs nor wants, and which offends its deeply held religious scruples?
— "Welfarism Gone Mad". New York Herald Tribune. 1961-05-14.
The struggle would continue for a decade. Legislation that would exempt the Amish from the Social Security program was introduced in Congress at least as early as 1959, and some of the resisters took the unusual step (unusual for the Amish) of petitioning the government in 1961. In 1965, the United States changed the Social Security law in a way that exempted self-employed Amish people from having to pay into the Social Security program.

War tax resistance during the Vietnam War

The American war against Vietnam led to strong opposition in the United States. 

Inspired by the use of civil disobedience in the civil rights movement and by an earlier generation of conscientious objectors to war tax payment, a new generation of resisters created a version of war tax resistance that was more oriented toward protest than conscientious objection. 

In 1966, A.J. Muste circulated a tax refusal pledge meant as an advertiement for the Washington Post that 370 people signed, including the singer Joan Baez, on the grounds "that the ordinary channels of protest have been exhausted."
This country has gone mad. But I will not go mad with it. I will not pay for organized murder. I will not pay for the war in Vietnam.
— Joan Baez
In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson proposed an income tax surtax explicitly to pay for war expenses. This was the first tax in the modern United States that was explicitly a "war tax" and helped to boost the prominence of war tax resistance as a protest tactic. 

In early 1967, a "No Tax for War Committee" organized by Maurice McCrackin circulated a sign-on statement that eventually attracted more than 200 signatures, and that read:
Because so much of the tax paid the federal government goes for poisoning of food crops, blasting of villages, napalming and killing thousands upon thousands of people, as in Vietnam at the present time, I am not going to pay taxes on 1966 income.
A "Writers & Editors War Tax Protest" the same year was somewhat less bold in its declaration (not all declaring total resistance, but some refusing to pay only the 10% surtax or only 23% of their total tax) but more impressive in its list of names. The protest, which appeared in New York Post, New York Times Book Review and Ramparts was eventually signed by about 528 people including Nelson Algren, James Baldwin, Robert Bly, Noam Chomsky, Robert Creeley, David Dellinger, Philip K. Dick, Robert Duncan, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Leslie Fiedler, Betty Friedan, Allen Ginsberg, Todd Gitlin, Paul Goodman, Edward S. Herman, Paul Krassner, Staughton Lynd, Dwight Macdonald, Jackson Mac Low, Norman Mailer, Peter Matthiessen, Milton Mayer, Ed McClanahan, Henry Miller, Carl Oglesby, Tillie Olsen, Grace Paley, Thomas Pynchon, Adrienne Rich, Kirkpatrick Sale, Ed Sanders, Robert Scheer, Peter Dale Scott, Susan Sontag, Terry Southern, Benjamin Spock, Gloria Steinem, William Styron, Norman Thomas, Hunter S. Thompson, Lew Welch, John Wieners, Kurt Vonnegut and Howard Zinn. The ad included a quotation from Thoreau's Civil Disobedience that ends:
If a thousand men would not pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the state to commit violence and shed innocent blood.
— Henry D. Thoreau, Civil Disobedience
(The Washington Post refused to print the ad "on the grounds that it was an implicit exhortation to violate the law", and the New York Times too, on the grounds that "we do not accept advertising urging readers to perform an illegal action" but thanks to the Streisand effect the word got out even better that way.) 

In addition, by this time thousands of Americans were refusing to pay the federal telephone excise tax on their phone service.

In 1970, five Harvard and nine M.I.T. faculty members, including Nobel laureates Salvador E. Luria and George Wald, announced that they would be resisting taxes in protest of the war.

In 1972, Jane Hart, wife of U.S. Senator Philip Hart, said that she would be resisting the federal income tax. By this time, every major I.R.S. center had a staff member assigned to be the "Viet Nam Protest Coordinator."

American tax resistance in the 21st Century

Tax resistance continues continues to be a background theme in American political discussion, and occasionally tax resistance campaigns break out in the United States. 

The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, today's successor of organizations like Peacemakers and the Committee for Nonviolent Revolution, organizes conscientious objectors to military taxation and anti-war protesters who use tax resistance as a tactic. 

The "Don't Buy Bush's War" campaign in 2007–08, organized by Code Pink to protest the U.S. War against Iraq, got 2,000 people to sign a tax resistance pledge.

The Tea Party protests of 2009 were in part a protest against high taxes (in addition to the allusion to the Boston Tea Party, the name was supposed to stand for "Taxed Enough Already"). Code Pink even reached out across the ideological aisle to try to find some common ground.

Tax resistance is used in smaller-scale struggles as well. When 23 county officials in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania were charged with corruption, and the county nonetheless decided to raise taxes by 10%, residents rebelled. One, Fred Heller, recorded a song in 2010 — "Take This Tax and Shove It" — to try to rally people to refuse to pay. When a smoking ban in Lansing, Michigan cut into their business, several taverns there launched a tax strike in 2011. When the Seattle, Washington, City Council introduced a city income tax in 2017, the state Republican Party did not wait for the tax to be ruled unconstitutional, but immediately called for "nothing less than civil disobedience — that is, refusal to comply, file, or pay."
Take this tax and shove it
We ain’t paying you crooks no more
The good ol’ boys stole all our cash
And ran out the courthouse door

— Fred Heller, "Take This Tax and Shove It"

Second law of thermodynamics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics   The second law of t...