History Podcasts

Campell, John - History

Campell, John - History

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Campbell, john

Campbell, John [4th Earl of Loudoun] (1705-1782) Commander-in-Chief of British forces in North America: Loudoun came to North America in 1756 to command troops in the French and Indian War. Expecting the colonists to pay for the war under his direction, he was surprised to find the Americans concerned about rights. The colonists were reluctant to fund the British war being fought in North America, and were clear about their opinions. Loudoun then changed the emphasis of his strategy, depending on troops organized and trained in England, and funded by English taxpayers. Insufficient support and encouragement from the British Government, the colonial assemblies, and the weather made it impossible for him to mount an offensive. Although he was less than successful militarily, Loudoun left behind a regular army that was well prepared to conquer Canada.

John Francis Campbell

John Francis Campbell (Scottish Gaelic: Iain Frangan Caimbeul Islay, 29 December 1821 – Cannes, 17 February 1885), also known as Young John of Islay (Scottish Gaelic: Iain Òg Ìle) was a renowned Scottish author and scholar who specialised in Celtic studies, considered an authority on the subject.

John Campbell (harness racing)

John Duncan Campbell (born April 8, 1955 in Ailsa Craig, Ontario) is a retired Canadian harness racing driver. He has been inducted into the Harness Racing Hall of Fame, the Canadian Horse Racing Hall of Fame and Canada's Sports Hall of Fame.

Dunc Campbell and his father before him were Standardbred horsemen. Dunc had two sons Ray and Jack Campbell with his family near London, Ontario. Jack had two sons, John Campbell and Jim Campbell. Ray was a trainer/driver as well as his son Robert Campbell.

Both John and Jim Campbell have established themselves in the upper echelon of harness racing, however many consider John Campbell the greatest reinsman of all-era's.

Campbell's dollar purse earnings, exceed any currently active driver or jockey. John has won more dollars-in-purses at any North American Track (i. e, The Meadowlands Racetrack) than any jockey or driver.

Campbell is considered by many to be the best driver in harness racing history. In 1976, harness racing was changed forever by the opening of the Meadowlands Racetrack in East Rutherford, New Jersey. The Meadowlands, also known as the Big M, is a one-mile harness track which attracted the very best harness horses, trainers and drivers in North America. Entering the 1970s, harness races were mostly contested with the horses racing in single file until they reached the homestretch, where the real race began. Also, most horses were driven by their owners or trainers. When the Meadowlands opened, a new breed of driver emerged called the catch-driver. The catch-driver was usually younger, lighter and more athletic and was able to make the horses go faster than the previous generation of driver. Campbell was the dominant catch driver of the late 1970s and 1980s and well into the 1990s. Campbell was a pioneer in the development of the modern catch driver and today, most top drivers are catch drivers.

He was the youngest driver ever elected into the U.S. Harness Racing Hall of Fame in 1990 at age 35 and is also a member of the Canadian Horse Racing Hall of Fame. He was inducted into the London (Ont.) Sports Hall of Fame in its inaugural class, 2002.

Campbell won the Hambletonian Stakes for a sixth time in 2006 with Glidemaster. [5]

On July 12, 2008, Campbell won his 10,000th race as a driver by guiding Share the Delight to victory in the sixth race at Meadowlands Racetrack. [6] [7]


Campbell was born near Washington, Georgia, to Col. Duncan Greene Campbell (for whom the now-defunct Campbell County, Georgia, was named). Considered a child prodigy, he graduated from the University of Georgia in 1825 at the age of 14, and immediately enrolled at the United States Military Academy for three years and would have graduated in 1830, but withdrew upon the death of his father (July 1828) and returned home to Georgia. [1] [2] He read law with his uncle, former Georgia governor John Clark, and was admitted to the bar in 1829, at the age of 18 which required a special act of the Georgia legislature.

While at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, on December 24–25, 1826, Campbell was involved in the Eggnog Riot also known as the "Grog Mutiny." Proceedings began on December 26, 1826, courts-martial was complete on March 16, 1827, and ended on May 3, 1827, with the President adjusting some of the verdicts and approving of the rest. Campbell was among 70 cadets that were involved but a review concluded that only 20 cadets and one enlisted soldier be charged. Many notable cadets such as Jefferson Davis (involved but not charged), and Robert E. Lee (not involved but testified), were involved in the incident. Nine expulsions were approved by President John Quincy Adams. There was a call for Campbell to be expelled, along with James W. M. "Weems" Berrien (remittance allowed) but this was rejected so Campbell escaped court martial. [3]

In 1830, Campbell moved to Montgomery, Alabama, where he met and married Anna Esther Goldthwaite and earned a reputation as a talented lawyer specializing in Spanish land grant titles. Hailed as a war hero for his involvement in the Creek Indian War of 1836, Campbell was elected state representative for that same year's term, firmly establishing himself as a Jacksonian Democrat in the state legislature. That meant that Campbell aligned with Jackson on national policies, supporting the bank veto and condemning nullification, but he remained a moderate proponent of states' rights.

After his only term in office, Campbell and his young family (which eventually expanded to include five daughters and one son) relocated to Mobile, Alabama, and Campbell later served a second term as state representative in 1842. Fortunately for Campbell's law career, though, Mobile was a bustling port city that constantly generated commercial lawsuits and Spanish grant disputes. In one such grant case, Mayor of Mobile v. Eslava (1849), Campbell revealed his states-rightist attitude and first articulated his doctrine of "original sovereignty" before the state supreme court. Briefly, Campbell argued that because each of the original 13 states had retained sovereignty over the navigable waters within its borders, and the Constitution makes all new states enter the Union on equal terms with existing states, new states like Alabama thus also retain sovereignty over their navigable waters. The Supreme Court upheld original sovereignty in an 1845 decision and Campbell would later refer to it in his Dred Scott concurrence. Thereafter, Campbell's star continued to rise as one of the most sought-after attorneys in Alabama, and in 1852, he even acted as an attorney for Myra Clark Gaines against Richard Relf before the Supreme Court. In most cases, Campbell represented debtors against banks, demonstrating a Jacksonian Democratic tendency to advocate for state control of corporate development and champion the individual's economic freedom. Twice, he turned down offers to sit on the Alabama Supreme Court, and on several occasions, he argued cases before the US Supreme Court.

During this successful early period as a lawyer, his political involvement also increased. From 1847 to 1851, for example, Campbell joined the national debate on slavery with the publication of four essays in the Southern Quarterly Review in which he called for improved conditions for slaves and gradual emancipation. Here, his theories and practices diverged: Campbell owned up to 14 slaves throughout his life, but he freed several before his Supreme Court appointment. Moreover, Campbell attended the Nashville Convention in 1850, where he helped compose a series of resolutions in reaction to the proposed Compromise of 1850. Although he drafted several of the final 13 resolutions in a conciliatory tone and never called for southern resistance, Campbell advocated the rights of slaveholders, condemned the free soil philosophy, and asserted the sole right of the states to regulate slavery within their borders.

Appointment Edit

In 1852 the death of Justice John McKinley created a vacancy on the Supreme Court. President Millard Fillmore, a Whig, made four nominations to fill the vacancy, all of whom withdrew, declined to serve, or were not acted on by the Democratic-controlled Senate. After the election of Franklin Pierce, a Democrat, a group of sitting Supreme Court justices approached Pierce to recommend Campbell as a nominee that is one of the few known times that sitting justices have made recommendations for new nominations. Pierce, who was hoping to stave off an insurrection by appeasing the South, agreed to nominate the Alabamian Campbell. The nomination was made on March 21, 1853, and even though Campbell was only 41 and had no previous judicial experience, the Senate unanimously approved the appointment within three days, indicating Northerners, who hoped that Campbell's moderate tendencies would help overpower the growing sectionalism. [4]

Constitutional contributions Edit

Under the direction of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Supreme Court weighed in on a number of important economic cases. In the 1837 case of Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, for instance, Taney wrote the majority opinion, arguing for strict construction of corporate charters and effectively restraining the implications of the Marshall Court's 1819 ruling in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, which had recognized corporate charters as contracts under constitutional protection. Thereafter, the slight majority of Jacksonian Democrats on the bench became uneasy supporters of corporate privilege, bound to respect rights that were expressly granted in corporate charters and effectively limiting state control over intrastate internal improvements. [5] Moreover, in 1844, the Taney Court had expanded upon the Marshall Court's 1809 decision in Bank of the United States v. Deveaux and upheld in Louisville v. Letson (1844) that regardless of where its shareholders resided, a corporation could claim citizenship in the state of its incorporation and thereby bring suit to the federal court under diversity jurisdiction. Although the Taney Court quickly reversed the precedent in Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio Transportation & Railroad Company (1854) and ruled that corporations, in fact, derive their citizenship from their shareholders and not from the states themselves, diversity jurisdiction still applied to corporations. [6]

Campbell refused to accept the Taney Court's recent precedents on these corporate issues. His opinion in Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company marked his first major dissent, in which he clearly argued, "a corporation is not a citizen. It may be an artificial person, a moral person, a judicial person, a legal entity, a faculty, an intangible, invisible being," but, he continued, quoting John Marshall, "it certainly is not a citizen." [7] Contesting corporate citizenship as the basis for diversity jurisdiction, Campbell further argued that corporations were not "within the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution when they delegated jurisdiction over controversies between the citizens of different states." [7] The Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1), in other words, should not extend citizenship to corporations. Arguably, Campbell's argument here, as well as in the dissenting opinions of fellow southern Justices John Catron and Peter V. Daniel, implicitly defended slavery. After all, if states could confer federal citizenship on corporations, then free blacks might also claim federal citizenship under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. [5] Later in his dissent, Campbell the Jacksonian Democrat also argued that the Court had encroached upon state powers by overextending federal jurisdiction in this case and that corporations themselves threaten states' internal powers. [8] Explicitly, Campbell wrote, "their [corporate] revenues and establishments mock at the frugal and stinted conditions of state administration their pretensions and demands are sovereign, admitting impatiently interference by state legislative authority." [9] If left unchecked by state legislatures and even protected by the national government, corporations threatened states' rights. In his first important case, then, Campbell took a hard stance against corporate privilege, defended states' rights, and arguably protected slavery.

In later cases, Campbell continued to fight corporate privilege by challenging Contract Clause protection of corporate charters. The following year, in fact, the Court heard Piqua Branch of the State Bank of Ohio v. Knoop (1854), a case which raised the question of whether a state legislature could change its taxation policy on corporations. Specifically, the Ohio General Banking Act of 1845 had provided that instead of paying taxes, each incorporated branch of the state bank would semiannually send six percent of its profits to the state. A subsequent 1851 law established a new taxing policy on banks. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the 1851 law had violated the Contract Clause because the 1845 law had constituted a contract between the state and a corporation of private shareholders. [10] Campbell, again part of the southern faction with Justices Catron and Daniel, emphatically dissented. Early in this dissent, Campbell distinguished "between the statutes which create hopes, expectations, faculties, conditions, and those which form contracts," ultimately arguing that the 1845 statute constituted the latter. [11] Later, Campbell defended state power to legislate in the public's best interest, explaining that this power is one "which every department of government knows that the community is interested in retaining unimpaired and that every corporator understood its abandonment ought not to be presumed in a case in which the deliberate purpose to abandon it does not appear." [12] State governments, according to Campbell, should be able to change their policies in order to keep pace with ever-evolving conditions furthermore, banks and other corporations were not exempted from tax adjustments unless explicitly stated in the statute. Campbell clearly prioritized states' rights over corporate privilege. [6]

The Court revisited this Ohio statute in two subsequent cases in the 1850s, and both times, Campbell issued thorough dissents. [13] Leading up to the final case, Dodge v. Woolsey (1855), the Ohio state legislature had amended its constitution to end tax exemptions for banks before enacting a new bank tax law in 1852. When a shareholder of the bank brought suit once again, the Court's majority, led by Justice James M. Wayne, maintained that even though the people of Ohio had amended their constitution, the 1845 bank act still constituted an inviolable contract. [14] In his elaborate dissent, Campbell recounted the facts of the case, denied corporate citizenship yet again, and criticized the majority for expanding judicial power. Campbell warned that if a state should grant away its funds and powers to a corporation, then "the most deliberate and solemn acts of the people would not serve to redress the injustice, and the overreaching speculator upon the facility or corruption of their legislature would be protected by the powers of this Court in the profits of his bargain." [15] In other words, this decision bound the Supreme Court to protect corrupt corporations and legislatures against the warranted state constitutional amendments proposed by the people themselves. Furthermore, this collusion between the central government and corporate entities, Campbell cautioned, will "establish on the soil of every state a caste made up of combinations of men for the most part under the most favorable conditions in society," eventually spawning "a new element of alienation and discord between the different classes of society and the introduction of a fresh cause of disturbance in our distracted political and social system." [16] Not only did corporations generate class conflict and threaten state sovereignty, argued the Jacksonian Democrat, but they also infringed upon individual liberties. [8] After all, corporations "display a love of power, a preference for corporate interests to moral or political principles or public duties, and an antagonism to individual freedom which have marked them as objects of jealousy in every epoch of their history." [17] In short, Campbell did not consider a broad interpretation of the Contract Clause a sufficient justification for all of the potential evils of corporate entities. Instead, Campbell firmly believed that states should have direct control over corporate expansion.

Five years later, Campbell successfully persuaded the majority of the Court to agree with a narrower interpretation of the Contract Clause in the 1860 case of Christ's Church Hospital v. County of Philadelphia. In 1833, the Pennsylvania legislature had granted a tax exemption to Christ's Church Hospital, but in 1851, it enacted a tax upon all associations and corporations. [8] Campbell concisely rejected the hospital's claim that the 1833 tax exemption was perpetual, writing, "such an interpretation is not to be favored, as the power of taxation is necessary to the existence of the State, and must be exerted according to the varying conditions of the Commonwealth." [18] As he had been arguing since taking the bench, states need to be able to adapt to the times and therefore have the right to control corporate development within their borders.

As sectional tensions escalated in the late 1850s, the Court came to hear divisive slavery cases, including the notorious Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Attempting to settle the issue of slavery in the territories once and for all, Chief Justice Taney's majority opinion forcefully asserted that blacks were not citizens and condemned the Missouri Compromise by declaring unconstitutional the federal regulation of slavery in the territories. Campbell issued a comprehensive concurring opinion. Although Campbell believed that the Court could not determine Scott's citizenship status and refused to discuss this issue, he aligned with Taney in most other claims and offered a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. Namely, Campbell agreed that Scott remained a slave under Missouri law and therefore could not sue in federal court. He then dedicated the greater part of his opinion to disproving the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, ultimately concluding that the Constitution's Territories Clause (Article IV, Section 3) did not grant Congress the power to regulate slavery in the territories. [19] To arrive at this conclusion, Campbell first asserted that Congress could not regulate slavery within existing states. After all, he wrote, "it is a settled doctrine of this court that the Federal government can exercise no power over the subject of slavery within the States, nor control the intermigration of slaves, other than fugitives, among the States." [20] And although the Territories Clause may grant Congress the authority to organize a government over public domain, it did not confer Congressional power to regulate municipal institutions, such as slavery, in the territories. Relying on his doctrine of original sovereignty, Campbell argued that such a clause permitting restrictive federal legislation would violate the innate sovereignty of the people in the territories, for when the people established their own state governments, these new states entered into the Union on equal footing with older states. [19] Furthermore, if the framers had really envisioned Congressional regulation of slavery in the territories, then southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention would have vehemently protested. In his own words, "the claim for Congress of supreme power in the Territories, under the grant to 'dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting territory,' is not supported by the historical evidence drawn from the Revolution, the Confederation, or the deliberations which preceded the ratification of the Federal Constitution." [21] As follows, the Territories Clause "confers no power upon Congress to dissolve the relations of the master and slave on the domain of the United States, either within or without any of the States." [22] In Dred Scott, Campbell clearly challenged what he considered to be an overextension of federal authority and advocated for territorial—and, by implication, state—self-government. [19]

Despite his proslavery and states' rightist concurrence in Dred Scott, Campbell upset many of his fellow southerners while presiding over the Fifth Circuit. In 1854 and 1858, he had frustrated two separate filibustering efforts to acquire Cuba and then Nicaragua, thus prioritizing national neutrality policies over southern efforts to gain more slaveholding states. [19]

In March and April 1861, prior to the outbreak of the American Civil War, Justice Campbell served as a mediator between three commissioners representing the Confederacy (Martin Crawford, Andre Roman, and John Forsyth, Jr.), and the Lincoln administration. The commissioners indicated they were interested in preventing war if possible. Since President Lincoln denied that secession was valid, he refused any official contact with the Confederate commissioners, but Justice Campbell was permitted in their place. [23]

On March 15, 1861, following the impassioned Senate speech of Stephen A. Douglas calling for the withdrawal of US forces from Confederate territory in order to ease tensions and prevent war, Lincoln's Secretary of State William H. Seward met with and assured Justice Campbell that Fort Sumter would be evacuated within ten days. [24] Again on March 20, 1861, Campbell was assured by Seward of the Lincoln Administration's intent to withdraw from the key military outpost. Due to a distrust of Seward, Campbell brought fellow Supreme Court Justice Samuel Nelson to this second meeting to act as a witness to Seward's promise. [24]

As feared by Campbell, on April 8 Lincoln reversed course by publicly stating he intended to resupply Fort Sumter either, “peacefully, or otherwise by force." [25] This resupply mission resulted in the Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter, Lincoln's proclamation of a state of rebellion and the start of the war.

As a result, Campbell resigned from the Supreme Court on April 30, 1861, and returned south. He was the only southern justice to do so. [26] Threatened with lynching and effectively banished from Alabama for his moderate views, opposition to secession, and attempt at mediation, Campbell settled in New Orleans. A year and a half later, in October 1862, he was appointed Confederate Assistant Secretary of War by Confederate president Jefferson Davis. He held that position through the end of the war.

Since Campbell served the Confederacy after his role as mediator, Lincoln's private secretary and subsequent biographer John G. Nicolay, ascribed ill motives to Campbell in that he, “ . came to Seward in the guise of a loyal official, though his correspondence with Jefferson Davis soon revealed a treasonable intent." [27] However, even when serving the Confederacy, Campbell still advocated for peace. [28]

Justice Campbell was one of the three Confederate Peace Commissioners (along with Alexander H. Stephens and Robert M. T. Hunter), who met with Abraham Lincoln and William H. Seward in 1865 at the Hampton Roads Conference in an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate an end to the Civil War. [29]

Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Campbell, John (1779-1861)

CAMPBELL, JOHN, first Baron Campbell (1779–1861), legal biographer, lord chief justice, and lord chancellor, traced his descent on his father's side from Archibald, the second earl of Argyll [q. v.], who fell at Flodden, and through his mother, who was a Hallyburton, from Robert, duke of Albany, the regent of Scotland. As a Hallyburton he could thus claim a remote kinship with Sir Walter Scott. His father was the Rev. George Campbell, for more than fifty years parish minister of Cupar in Fifeshire, a friend of Robertson and Blair, a popular preacher, and the writer of the article on Cupar in the old 'Statistical Account of Scotland.' There John Campbell was born on 15 Sept. 1779. With his elder brother, George, afterwards Sir George Campbell of Edenwood, he was educated at the Cupar grammar school, and in 1790, when he was only eleven years old, they went together to St. Andrews University. It was an early age even for a Scotch university, but the case was not unique, Dr. Chalmers, for instance, becoming a student at St. Andrews in 1791 before he was twelve years old ( Hanna , Life of Chalmers, i. 9). At fifteen Campbell had finished the arts curriculum, though he did not take the degree of M.A. until some years afterwards, when he discovered that it would be of use to him in England. As a boy his health was weak, and he grew up an eager and miscellaneous reader with little love of games. Golf, of course, he played occasionally, but without any enthusiasm, though he considered it 'superior to the English cricket, which is too violent and gives no opportunity for conversation.' Being destined for the ministry, he entered St. Mary's College, St. Andrews, where he remained for three years, studying theology and Hebrew, writing exercise sermons, and looking forward to life in a parish kirk. Gradually, however, he became convinced that he would never be famous as a divine, and he eagerly accepted a tutorship in London. Thither he went in 1798, not yet abandoning thoughts of the church, but with the possibility of some more brilliant career dimly present to his mind. He held the post for nearly two years, employing his leisure time in casual literary work, writing a few of the historical passages in the 'Annual Register,' and reviewing books and translating French newspapers for the 'Oracle.' Towards the end of 1799 he wrung from his father an unwilling consent that he should exchange the church for the bar. 'I have little doubt,' he wrote to his sister before the final decision, 'that I myself should pass my days much more happily as a parish parson than as an eminent lawyer but I think that when the path to wealth and fame is open for any man he is bound for his own sake, but much more for the sake of his friends, to enter it without hesitation, although it should be steep, rugged, and strewn with thorns. I declare to you most seriously that I have scarcely a doubt that I should rise at the English bar'–even to the chancellorship, he added with equal seriousness. He entered Lincoln's Inn on ​ 3 Nov. 1800, and maintained himself by reporting in the House of Commons and in the law courts for the 'Morning Chronicle.' The reporting was done without a knowledge of shorthand, which he had no desire to learn, having convinced himself that by rewriting a speech from notes its spoken effect can be more truthfully reproduced than by setting down the exact words. With his dramatic criticism he took great pains. 'I not only read carefully,' he said, 'all the pieces usually acted, but I made myself master of the history of our stage from Shakespeare downwards, and became fairly acquainted with French, German, and Spanish literature.' For a year or two his time was fully occupied with this work, varied by the reading of law and by his experiences as an energetic volunteer during the Bonaparte scare. He did not give himself up seriously to law till the beginning of 1804, when he entered the chambers of Tidd, the great special pleader. He remained with Tidd nearly three years, taking up rather the position of an assistant than of a pupil, and was called to the bar on 15 Nov. 1806. From the first he started with a clear lead. He had by zealous work acquired more than a beginner's knowledge of law he had a wider store of experience, gathered from variety of occupation and miscellaneous reading, than most men of his years and he had a sturdy faith in himself, which hardly ever drooped, and a firm belief in his own ultimate success. Immediately after his call he was engaged for several months in preparing the second edition of Watson's 'Treatise on the Law of Partnership,' which he seems to have in great part rewritten (published 1807 his name does not appear in the book). The ample leisure that was now forced upon him made him try a venture of his own. In 1807 he began his reports of cases at nisi prius. 'Although the judgment of the courts in banco,' he says in his 'Autobiography' (i. 214), 'had been regularly reported from the time of Edward II, with the exception of a few rulings of C. J. Holt and C. J. Lee to be found in Lord Raymond and Strange, nisi prius reporting was not attempted till the time of Lord Kenyon, when nisi prius cases were published by Peake and by Espinasse.' The reports of Espinasse were very inaccurate, and as Peake, who was held in higher esteem, had almost given up the work by Campbell's time, the field was practically unoccupied, while the period of the Napoleonic war, with novel commercial questions daily cropping up, was rich in legal interest. Campbell reported Lord Ellenborough's decisions with great care and tact, revising them and publishing only such as he considered sound on authority and principle. 'When I arrived,' he said afterwards, 'at the end of my fourth and last volume, I had a whole drawer full of "bad Ellenborough law."' The reports accordingly have since been treated as of high authority. 'On all occasions,' said Lord Cranworth, 'I have found . that they really do, in the fewest possible words, lay down the law, very often more distinctly and more accurately than it is to be found in many lengthened reports' (Williams v. Bayley, L. R. 1 H. L. 213). An innovation which attracted attention, criticism, and a recognition of Campbell's shrewdness, and which subsequent reporters have adopted, consisted in appending to the report of each case the names of the attorneys engaged in it, in order that any one who doubted the accuracy of a report might at once know where he could inspect the briefs in the case (see note to first case, i. 4). For some years Campbell's life was that of a struggling barrister who had to make his own way, and whose chief advantages were his power of work and his alertness to push his way through every opening. His reputation, especially in matters of mercantile law, grew very rapidly. In his fourth year he made over 500l., and in his fifth double that sum. In 1816 his business had increased so greatly that he had to give up his reports. In 1819 he was in a position to justify him in applying for a silk gown, though not till 1827, when Copley became chancellor, was the dignity granted to him. In 1821 he married Miss Scarlett, daughter of the future Lord Abinger.

His thoughts had already turned towards parliament, though he showed no great eagerness to enter it. 'It is amazing,' he said, 'how little parliamentary distinction does for a man nowadays at the bar.' He made his first attempt in 1826 at Stafford, a borough of singular corruption even in those corrupt days and though unsuccessful, he proved so popular a candidate, that at the general election after George IV's death his supporters invited him to stand again, and he was returned in time to take part in the reform debates. At no period in his life did he have politics much at heart, nor were his opinions very decided. He cast in his lot with the liberal party, and on the great questions of catholic emancipation, the repeal of the Test Act, the suppression of slavery, and parliamentary reform he was on the side of freedom but his strong conservative instincts, and his comparatively slight interest in such matters, prevented him from taking a leading part. The advice which ​ he gave to his brother is a perfect summary of his opinions: 'For God's sake do not become radical.' The Reform Bill of 1831 astounded him at first. 'I was prepared,' he said, 'to support any moderate measure, but this really is a revolution ipso facto.' Upon consideration, however, he came to regard it as a safe and prudent reform, a restoration of the constitution, not an innovation, and he voted for the second reading, which was thus carried by a majority of one. His real interest was in law reform. In 1828, as a consequence of Brougham's famous speech, two commissions were appointed, one to inquire into common law procedure, the other to inquire into the law of real property 'and the various interests therein, and the methods and forms of alienating, conveying, and transferring the same, and of assuring the titles thereto,' and to suggest means of improvement. Sugden having declined to serve, Campbell was put at the head of the Real Property Commission. He was the only common lawyer who sat on it, and hitherto he had not been familiar with the subject of inquiry indeed, it was said at the time that there were not half a dozen men in England who understood the law of real property. The general conclusion of the commission was that very few essential alterations were required the law relating to the transfer of land was exceedingly defective, but in other respects 'the law of England, except in a few comparatively unimportant particulars, appears to come almost as near to perfection as can be expected in any human institutions' (1st Rep. p. 6). In the first report, which appeared in 1829, Campbell wrote the introduction and the section on prescription, and the statutes of limitation. Over the second report (1830), proposing a scheme for a general register of deeds and instruments relating to land, the third (1832) dealing with tenures, &c., and the fourth (1833) on amendments in the law of wills, he exercised only a general superintendence (Life, i. 457-9). The first speech which he delivered in parliament (1830) was in moving for leave to bring in a bill for the establishment of a general register of deeds affecting real property (reprinted, Speeches, p. 430). The bill was introduced again in the following session, but although a select committee reported in favour of it, the opposition was so strong that it had to be abandoned. Twenty years later he succeeded in carrying a similar bill through the lords, but there it ended. The other recommendations of the commission had a better fortune. In 1833 Campbell, who had been made solicitor-general in the previous year, helped to carry through several measures of such importance as to mark a distinct period in the history of the law of real property: the statutes of limitation (3 & 4 Wm. IV. cc. 27 and 42) the Fines and Recoveries Act (c. 74)—almost entirely the work of Mr. Brodie, the conveyancer, and described by Sugden as 'a masterly performance' ( Hayes , Conveyancing, i. 155 n, and 216) an act to render freehold and copyhold estates assets for the payment of simple contract debts (c. 104) the Dower Act (c. 105) and an act for the amendment of the law of inheritance (c. 106). Never had so clean a sweep been made of worn-out rules of law as was done by this group of statutes. 'They quietly passed through both houses of parliament,' says Campbell, 'without one single syllable being altered in any of them. This is the only way of legislating on such a subject. They had been drawn by the real property commissioners, printed and extensively circulated, and repeatedly revised, with the advantage of the observations of skilful men studying them in their closet. A mixed and numerous deliberative assembly is wholly unfit for such work' (Life, ii. 29). A further step on the lines of the commission was taken four years later in the Wills Amendment Act (1 Vict. c. 26), which placed real property and personal property in the same position as regards the formalities necessary for the validity of wills. Campbell became attorney-general in 1834, but he failed to be re-elected at Dudley, and remained for three months without a seat, finding refuge at last in Edinburgh, where he was returned by a large majority. It was in a speech to his new constituents that he characteristically described himself as 'plain John Campbell,' a happy designation which he has never lost. With two brief intervals of opposition, in 1834-5 and in 1839, he remained attorney-general till 1841. He was felt at the time to be invaluable to the whigs in parliament, as indeed the government testified by refusing to make him a judge, though he pressed his claims with a good deal of pertinacity (see Life of Brougham, iii. 341-53). Twice he asked in vain to be made master of the rolls, first on the death of Leach in 1834 (see correspondence in Life of Brougham, iii. 422-30), and next when Pepys became lord chancellor in 1836. On the second occasion Campbell felt that his dignity was compromised, for though not an equity lawyer, he considered himself entitled to the office almost as a matter of right. He resolved to resign, and in fact carried his letter of resignation to Lord Melbourne but he was induced to give way by a promise that in recognition of the value ​ of his services his wife should be raised to the peerage. She was created Baroness Stratheden. In 1838 and in 1839, when vacancies occurred in the court of common pleas, he had still serious thoughts of accepting a puisne judgeship, but he was again dissuaded from abandoning the government. After the Real Property Acts, his chief legislative work during this period was the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835, in the preparation of which he had a chief part, and which he carried through the House of Commons. He had much at heart the carrying of a measure for abolishing imprisonment for debt, except in certain cases of fraud, and for giving creditors greater powers over their debtors' property, but he was only partially successful. An act of 1836 (1 & 2 Vict. c. 110) extended the remedies of judgment creditors, and abolished imprisonment for debt on mesne process but imprisonment for ordinary debts after judgment was not done away with till 1869. Yet another abuse he swept away by the Prisoners' Counsel Act (6 & 7 Wm. IV, c. 114), which gave to a person charged with felony, or to his counsel, the same rights of addressing the jury on the merits of the case as if he were charged with treason or misdemeanor, and allowed all persons on trial to have copies of, and to inspect, depositions taken against them. Strange to say, nearly all the judges were opposed to this change, Mr. Justice Allan Park, in fact, threatening to resign if the bill were carried. Among the famous cases in which Campbell took part while he was at the head of the bar were the trial of Lord Melbourne in 1836, the second action of Stockdale v. Hansard in 1839, the trial of Frost the chartist in 1840, and the trial of Lord Cardigan in 1841 for wounding Captain Tuckett in a duel. In 1842 he published a selection of his speeches delivered at the bar and in the House of Commons and with a lack of good feeling, for which he was very justly condemned, he included his defence of Lord Melbourne. The only part of the volume that has any permanent value is his argument in Stockdale v. Hansard. He had devoted a great part of two long vacations to preparing it. 'I had read everything,' he says, 'that had the smallest bearing on the subject, from the earliest year-book to the latest pamphlet—not confining myself to mere legal authorities, but diligently examining historians, antiquaries, and general jurists, both English and foreign' (see also Sumner 's Life, ii. 13). He printed much in later years, but nothing that showed more careful labour than the full account which this speech contains of the history and the reason of parliamentary privilege. The court, over which Lord Denman presided, decided against him (9 A. & E. 1 see Bradlaugh v. Gossett, L. R. 12 Q. B. D. 271) and the excitement and the difficulties caused by their 'ill-considered and intemperate judgment,' as Campbell unreasonably calls it in his 'Autobiography,' were ended only by the passing of an act to give summary protection to persons employed in the publication of parliamentary papers (3 Vict. c. 9. See his Life, ch. xxiii. Speeches, p. 406 and Broom 's Constitutional Law, where the case is reported with a summary of Campbell's argument). Another elaborate argument was delivered by him in the great Sergeant's case, but he did not include it in his published speeches (see Manning 's Sergeant's Case, p. 114. In Forsyth 's Cases and Opinions on Constitutional Law will be found a considerable number of Campbell's opinions written while he was a law officer).

In 1841, when the dissolution was resolved on which ended in the fall of the whigs, it was felt that Campbell's services should receive recognition. Pressure was brought to bear on Lord Plunket, the Irish lord chancellor, to induce him to resign, which he did unwillingly, protesting against the arrangement, and Campbell was appointed and raised to the peerage. As the appointment was so impopular in Dublin, and as it had been freely called a job, he publicly declared that he would forego the usual pension of 4,000l. a year which attached to the Irish chancellorship. When the subject had been first mooted, he appears to have thought that Lord Plunket's consent had been obtained, and when he learned the real state of matters, the delay had put in danger his Edinburgh seat. His own account of the transaction shows that he himself saw nothing discreditable in the part which he played. He held the office only for six weeks, and sat in court only a few days. His lack of experience as an equity lawyer did not prevent him from forming large schemes for the reform of equity procedure, which he sketched out in an address to the Irish bar (Speeches, p. 516) but they were cut short by the resignation of the Melbourne ministry, and he was replaced in the chancellorship by Sugden (Life of Plunket, ii. 329 O'Flanagan , Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland, ii. 595).

He returned to England, and, according to his bargain, without a pension. Judicial business in the House of Lords (where he took part in the O'Connell case) and on the judicial committee of the privy council left him plenty of leisure, which his ambitious ​ industry speedily found means of turning to account. He published his speeches he wrote his autobiography (completed at various times in later years) and in his sixty-third year he set himself to write the lives of the chancellors from the earliest times downwards. The difficulty and magnitude of the task discouraged him at first, and for a time he abandoned it but he returned to it with such vigour, that in one year and ten months he had in print the first three volumes, down to the revolution of 1688. 'Assuming it,' he wrote afterwards with no misgivings, 'to be a "standard work," as it is at present denominated, I doubt whether any other of the same bulk was ever finished off more rapidly.' The first series of 'Lives' appeared in 1845, the second (to Lord Thurlow's death) in 1846, and the third (to Lord Eldon's death) in 1847. The work had great success. Within a month a second edition of the first series was called for, and 2,050 copies of the second series were sold on the day of publication. The literary honours which were showered upon him inspired him to seek another subject. His ambition was 'to produce a specimen of just historical composition.' He thought, it seems, of writing the 'History of the Long Parliament,' but eventually decided to continue working on his old field. His first intention was to take up the Irish chancellors. He was afraid, however, that in spite of some interesting names, 'as a body they would appear very dull,' so he determined to postpone them till he had completed the 'Lives of the Chief Justices.' Working as rapidly as ever, by 1849 he had brought down his narrative to the death of Lord Mansfield, and published the first two volumes. The third volume, containing the lives of Kenyon, Ellenborough, and Tenterden, appeared in 1857.

The merits of his 'Lives' are very considerable. They are eminently readable. The style is lively, though rough, careless, and incorrect every incident is presented effectively they are full of good stories, and they contain a great deal of information about the history of law and lawyers which is not easily to be found elsewhere. The later volumes, moreover, both of the 'Chancellors' and the 'Chief Justices,' have the freshness and interest of personal memoirs. For all these qualities Campbell has received due and sufficient recognition. Nor has time worn away the merits of his books they still find many readers, and there is little probability that they will be displaced by anything more entertaining written on the same subject. None the less are they among the most censurable publications in our literature. 'As an historical production,' says a careful critic, speaking of the 'Chancellors,' 'the whole work is wanting in a due sense of the obligations imposed by such a task, is disfigured by unblushing plagiarisms, and, as the writer approaches his own times, by much unscrupulous misrepresentation '( Gardiner and Mullinger , Introd. to English History, p. 229). This judgment is not too severe. The tone of laborious research which pervades every volume is delusive. No writer ever owed so much to the labours of others who acknowledged so little (for some examples of his method see 'Law Magazine,' xxxv. 119). Literary morality in its other form, the love of historical truth and accuracy, he hardly understood. No one who has ever followed him to the sources of his information will trust him more for not only was he too hurried and careless to sift such evidence as he gathered, but even plain statements of fact are perverted, and his authorities are constantly misquoted (see Christie 's Shaftesbury Papers, containing a 'minute dissection' of the first chapter of Campbell's life of Shaftesbury G. T. Kenyon 's Life of Lord Kenyon, written because Lord Campbell's life of Kenyon was unsatisfactory Forsyth 's Essays, 127-132 Pulling 's Order of the Coif).

The concluding volume of the 'Chancellors,' published after his death, and containing the lives of Lyndhurst and Brougham, is even more lamentable, and has done more than anything else to lower the reputation of Campbell. Lyndhurst's prediction came true. 'I predict,' so he is reported to have said to Brougham, with reference to a judicial appointment of which Campbell was disappointed, 'that he will take his revenge on you by describing you with all the gall of his nature. He will write of you, and perhaps of me too, with envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness, for such is his nature' (Life of Brougham, iii. 435. The conversation, which is said to have taken place in 1835, is obviously misreported, for there is a reference in it to the 'Lives of the Chancellors' and to Wetherell's remark that they had added a new sting to death but if the prediction was not Lyndhurst's it was Brougham's). The book is a marvel of inaccuracy and misrepresentation, and, if not written with actual malice, it exhibits a discreditable absence of generosity and good feeling. The only possible excuse for such a work is one suggested by Lyndhurst himself, that Campbell was not always aware of the effect of the expressions which he used 'he has been so accustomed to relate degrading ​ anecdotes of his predecessors in office, that I am afraid his feelings upon these subjects have become somewhat blunted' (Hansard, 13 July 1857). No sooner had it appeared than Lord St. Leonards, who incidentally suffered from the biographer's inaccuracy, published an indignant pamphlet in his own defence, 'Misrepresentations in Campbell's Lives of Lyndhurst and Brougham, corrected by St. Leonards.' Brougham's story, as told by himself, has since been published (1871) and the life of Lyndhurst has been rewritten by Sir Theodore Martin (1883) (see also 2nd edition of Sidney Gibson 's Memoir of Lord Lyndhurst).

In 1846, when the whigs returned, Campbell had hopes of being restored to the Irish chancellorship but in deference to Irish feeling it was decided that the office should be held, as it has ever since been held, by an Irishman, and Campbell was made instead chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, with a seat in the cabinet. He had meanwhile been playing a leading part in the House of Lords. 'Edinburgh,' said Brougham, with his usual exaggeration, 'is now celebrated for having given us the two greatest bores that have ever yet been known in London, for Jack Campbell in the House of Lords is just what Tom Macaulay is in private society.' He had certainly very little oratorical fervour, and, as one may judge from 'Hansard,' he was often tedious but the opinions of a man so shrewd and experienced always commanded attention. The passing of several important measures during this period was greatly owing to his exertions, the most important of them being the Copyright Act of 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 45) the Libel Act of 1843 (6 & 7 Vict. c. 96), known as Lord Campbell's Act, and drafted by himself with the assistance of Starkie, the well-known text writer on the law of libel and slander and an act of 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93), also known as Lord Campbell's Act, which did away with the rule that where a person was killed by the wrongful act, neglect or default of another, no action for damages could be brought by his representatives. Lord Denman's health breaking down in 1849, Campbell received assurances that he would be made chief justice, and he applied himself to the study of the recent changes in legal procedure. Much delay occurred Denman, resenting several uncomplimentary references to himself in Campbell's 'Lives,' was unwilling to resign in his favour ( Arnould , Life of Denman, ii. 288) and it was not till March 1850 that the appointment was actually made. His judicial labours mainly filled up his subsequent life but he still took a share in legal debates and in legislation. In 1851 he succeeded at length in passing the Registration Bill through the lords, a measure which, he says in his journal, 'ought to immortalise me,' but it came to grief in the commons. He joined in the opposition to the Wensleydale life peerage, preparing himself for the debate as usual by reading 'all that had been written on the subject.' He presided over the committee to inquire into the question of divorce, and saw their recommendations carried into effect by the Divorce and Matrimonial Act of 1857. And he left yet another Lord Campbell's Act on the statute-book, the Obscene Publications Act of 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 83). His literary schemes had to be abandoned but he spent the autumn of 1858 at Hartrigge, an estate in Roxburghshire, which he had purchased some years before, in reading through Shakespeare to see 'whether the bard of Avon, before he left Stratford, had not been an attorney's clerk.' The pamphlet in which he discusses the question (published in the form of a letter to J. Payne Collier) convinced Macaulay that Shakespeare had some legal training, Campbell himself inclining to the same belief, though he declined to give a decided opinion.

Lord Campbell the judge is a more pleasing figure than Lord Campbell the author. He had his failings, it would seem, even on the bench, showing, for example, somewhat too openly an unworthy love of applause. But he did not debase his talents by hurried work. He was ambitious to leave behind him the reputation of a sound lawyer, and by aid of his wide knowledge, his long experience, his untiring industry, and his natural strength of intellect, he succeeded. Though changes in procedure have rendered obsolete many of the cases in which he took part, there remains a solid body of law connected with his name. His decisions, some of them in 'leading cases' (such as Humphries v. Brogden), are constantly cited, and his opinion still carries weight. For his House of Lords cases see Cl. & F. from vol. viii. and his privy council cases, Moore from vol. iii. his civil cases as chief justice are reported in 1-9 E. & B., E. B. & E., 1 & 2 E. & E., and 12-18 Q. B. his criminal cases in 3-8 Cox, and in Bell's, Dearsly's, and Dearsly and Bell's Crown Cases. Among his causes célèbres were Achilli's action against Newman (1852), and the trials of Palmer (1856) and Bernard (1858).

When the liberal party regained power in 1859, great difficulty was experienced in deciding who should be chancellor. There were several rivals for the honour, each with ​ strong supporters and, unable to decide between their claims, Lord Palmerston gave the great seal to Campbell, acting, it is said, on the advice of Lord Lyndhurst ( Martin , Life of Lyndhurst, 480). Campbell was now in his eightieth year, and no one, as he took pains to find out, had ever been appointed to, or had even held, the office at so advanced an age. About two years of life remained to him, which were marked by little that is noteworthy. He made a respectable equity judge, and prided himself on his rapid despatch of business but his rather overbearing nature caused some friction with the other judges (see his remarks on V.-c. Page Wood in the case of Burch v. Bright, and the protests of the other vice-chancellors Life of Lord Hatherley, i. 88. His equity decisions are reported in De G. F. & J.) The chief political incident of the time was the outbreak of the American war, and it was by Campbell's advice that the government agreed to recognise the belligerent rights of the Southern states ( Russell , Recollections and Suggestions 286). Had he lived a few weeks longer, his chancellorship would have been distinguished by the passing of the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts, in the preparation of which he had taken a great interest (see introduction to Greaves's edition of the acts). He died on the night of 22 June 1861, having sat in court and attended a cabinet council during the day.

Lord Campbell possessed in a supreme degree the art of getting on. 'If Campbell,' said Perry of the 'Morning Chronicle,' 'had engaged as an opera-dancer, I do not say he would have danced as well as Deshayes, but I feel confident he would have got a higher salary.' He was full of ambition, and though he did not lack public spirit, he judged most things by their bearing on his personal fortunes. Perhaps nothing paints his mind more clearly than a phrase which he lets drop in a letter to his brother in recommending the study of the best English classics 'they bear reading very well,' he writes, 'and you can always make them tell.' He had no false modesty, rather an exalted self-confidence, which he concealed neither from himself nor from others he had patience to wait for his opportunities, yet he never let himself be forgotten and his enormous industry and power of getting rapidly through work stood him in stead of abilities of the highest kind. He fell far short of greatness, intellectual or moral. Not even as the term is applied to the great rivals of his later life, Brougham and Lyndhurst, can he be described as a man of genius. On its moral side his nature was lowered by ambition. His private life, indeed, was rich in fine traits. In no man was the sense of family union more strong, and few have won for themselves and maintained through a busy life a deeper devotion and affection. His public career is less attractive. While his abilities compelled admiration, he did not in any high degree inspire feelings of enthusiasm or confidence. Some of his contemporaries have even represented him as essentially ungrateful and ungenerous. But this is exaggeration. His were simply the defects of a man of pushing character, whose eagerness to succeed made itself too plainly felt. But whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the spirit in which he served his country, there is none as to the value of the services themselves. As a legislator and a judge he left a name which can never be passed over when the history of our law is written.

The following is a list of his works: 1. 'Reports of Cases determined at Nisi Prius in the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas, and on the Home Circuit,' 4 vols. 1809-16 vols. i. and ii. were reprinted in New York in 1810-11 vols. iii. and iv., with notes by Howe, in 1821. 2. 'Letter to a Member of the present Parliament on the Articles of a Charge against Marquis Wellesley which have been laid before the House of Commons,' 1808 (see Watt 's Bibl. Brit.) 3. 'Letter to the Right Hon. Lord Stanley on the Law of Church Rates,' 1837 at least five editions were published during the year reprinted in his 'Speeches.' It was written to show that the assent of the vestry was required before a valid church rate could be levied, and that no legal means existed of compelling the vestry to impose a rate. 4. 'Speeches of Lord Campbell at the Bar and in the House of Commons with an address to the Irish Bar as Lord Chancellor of Ireland,' 1842. 5. 'The Lives of the Lord Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal of England from the earliest times till the reign of King George IV.' In 3 series, 7 vols., 1846-7 4th ed., 10 vols., 1856-7. The life of Lord Bacon was reprinted in Murray's 'Railway Library.' An American work has the following title: 'Atrocious Judges. Lives of Judges infamous as tools of tyrants and instruments of oppression. Compiled from the judicial biographies of John, Lord Campbell, Lord Chief Justice of England,' with notes by R. Hildrath, New York and Auburn, 1856. 6. 'The Lives of the Chief Justices of England from the Norman Conquest till the death of Lord Mansfield,' 3 vols. 1849 and 1857. 7. 'Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements considered, in a Letter to J. Payne Collier, Esq., F.S.A.,' 1859. 8. 'Lives of Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Brougham,' ​ 1869 the eighth volume of the 'Chancellors, uniform with first edition. The 'Chancellors,' the 'Chief Justices,' and the pamphlet on Shakespeare have appeared in American editions.

[Life of Lord Campbell, consisting of a selection from his autobiography, diary, and letters, edited by his daughter, the Hon. Mrs. Hardcastle Foss's Judges Law Magazine, August 1853 and August 1861 Martin's Life of Lord Lyndhurst Brougham's Life and Times Bennet's Biographical Sketches from the Note-books of a Law Reporter Annual Register, 1861 Times, 24 June 1861 Sol. Journ. 29 June 1861 Hansard from 1830 onwards Lord Campbell's works contain frequent references to passages in his own life.]

John Campbell and the Invention of Wyoming

Wyoming’s first governor was no longer quite young when he arrived in the brand-new territory, stepping off the train in a Cheyenne rainstorm. Unmarried, 33 years old, John A. Campbell was a short, handsome man, with hair a little thin on top and a thick beard below. President Ulysses S. Grant had appointed him governor just a few weeks earlier. Grant himself had been president just a few weeks longer than that.

Like most of the men the new president was appointing to government jobs, Campbell had served on the Union side in the Civil War, part of that time on the staff of Maj. Gen. John M. Schofield. He had done well, entering the Army as a private and ending up a brevet brigadier general. Before the war he had worked as a printer and writer on a newspaper in Cleveland, Ohio.

After the war he stayed in the Army on Schofield’s staff, working in northern Virginia to get political systems set up and going again. Not only had the war killed hundreds of thousands of men, it had flattened crops, ruined businesses, and ended politics-as-usual across the South.

But the war had also freed the people who had previously been enslaved. With the conflict behind it, the nation quickly approved changes in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to vote to men of all colors. Campbell’s job included setting up elections and redrawing the boundaries of the areas in Virginia that sent representatives to the state legislature. To do so, he needed to know something about the countryside and population of each area. To do his job right, he had to make sure the freed slaves could in fact vote at the new elections.

Perhaps this work, reinventing politics in northern Virginia, had made him seem a likely choice for governor of Wyoming Territory. In Wyoming he would have to establish politics and government in a place where very little had existed before.

This would prove difficult. Much of the work might have gone more smoothly if the territory had had a stronger economy—and if Campbell himself had been a stronger leader. Still, he acted with real courage at some important moments, and those actions produced positive results when things might easily have turned out far worse.

A new territory

Congress had established the new Wyoming Territory in the summer of 1868, carving most of it from western parts of Dakota Territory and the rest from smaller slices of Utah and Idaho territories. Laramie County and Carter County (later Sweetwater County), for example, had already existed as part of Dakota Territory.

President Andrew Johnson, however, near the end of his term and dealing with a hostile Congress that was impeaching him, failed to win Congressional approval for any of his appointees to a new Wyoming government. The new president, Ulysses S. Grant, shortly after taking office in March 1869, appointed a slate of Wyoming territorial officers with Campbell as governor. Congress quickly confirmed the appointments.

Campbell arrived on May 7, 1869. Cheyenne then was still a drab, treeless place of shacks and thin-board buildings, with garbage blowing by and dogs running loose. He would normally have been expected to give a speech, perhaps from the platform at the rear of the train.

But the rain made that impossible, and anyway the governor wasn’t feeling well. The motion of the train may have made him nauseous. Later, some people sang songs for him. “Was serenaded at night,” he wrote in his diary, “but too sick to respond.”

With Campbell on the train were other territorial officers, also appointed by Grant: Campbell’s second-in-command, Territorial Secretary Edward M. Lee the three judges who would run the territorial courts, John H. Howe, W.T. Jones and John W. Kingman U.S. Attorney Joseph M. Carey, who would go on to a long career in Wyoming politics and the head police officer for the territory, U.S. Marshal Church Howe.

Wyoming Territory had existed on paper before they came. But their arrival made it a real thing. Before then, such government as there was in the 1860s came from authorities in Salt Lake City, in Utah Territory, Lewiston in Idaho Territory and Yankton in Dakota Territory.

Only the building of the transcontinental Union Pacific Railroad had made creation of Wyoming Territory necessary at all. The railroad had begun building west from Omaha in 1867, crossed what’s now Wyoming in 1868 and in May 1869 linked up with the Central Pacific in Utah Territory to become the first transcontinental line.

As Campbell would note later, it was the first time in history that the coming of a railroad had preceded, not followed, settlement. And he knew how important the railroad was to the new territory. Just two days after he arrived in Cheyenne, he rode the railroad west to Utah to make sure Wyoming was represented at the famous golden spike ceremony marking the completion of the transcontinental road.

But because Campbell, Lee and the other new officials were appointed, not elected, the territory was more like a colony than a state. These new men did not know the people they had been sent to govern, and the people did not know them. Equally important, their jobs depended not on the votes of locals but on whether they could please their superiors in the Grant administration in distant Washington, D.C.

An indecisive president

President Abraham Lincoln had made Grant general of all the Union armies in 1864, and he earned a reputation as a great general. He was willing to make the horrible decision to send large numbers of men to their deaths in order to win battles, and so his armies won the war.

But the man who had been so clear-headed in war was uncertain in politics. Grant filled the national government with his Union Army friends and connections, yet apparently didn’t have the heart to be a tough boss when people didn’t do their jobs.

This mattered a great deal in Wyoming. Grant “exercised his patronage power”—his power to hire and fire members of his administration—“whimsically and indecisively,” historian Lewis Gould has written. “This policy created an atmosphere of uncertainty, which encouraged devious intrigues and treachery” inside his government.

Like the president, the new officers of Wyoming Territory, including Campbell and Lee, were Republicans. The Republican Party at the time was still the party of Lincoln—the party that had freed the slaves, opposed hard liquor, won the war and saved the Union. Now, after the war, the Republicans were becoming the party of business and property owners.

The Democrats, by contrast, had long been considered the party of small farmers, drinkers and the common man. During the Civil War, many northern Democrats had wanted to settle the conflict by negotiation rather than through fighting. Now they opposed votes for black people.

Like nearly all presidents, Grant used his patronage powers to his political advantage and to the advantage of his party. He appointed as many Republicans as possible because he realized that more Republicans in the territories and everywhere else would help him stay in power in Washington.

A new government

The first job facing Wyoming’s new officials was similar to the work Campbell had done in Virginia—drawing legislative districts and setting up elections. Since nearly all the 8,000 or so non-Indians in Wyoming lived along the railroad, the new Territory was divided into five counties, each with its own railroad town. Then as now, Cheyenne was in Laramie County Laramie was in Albany County Rawlins in Carbon County Green River City, as it was called, was in Carter County, which was soon renamed Sweetwater County and Bear River City, 10 miles southwest of what later became the town of Evanston, was in Uinta County.

The counties were huge. They ran all the way from the south border of the territory to the north. Each county, according to its population, would send representatives to the new territorial legislature in Cheyenne. The legislature would have thirteen representatives in its House, and nine councilors in its Council, essentially a Senate. And the whole territory would elect a delegate to the U.S. Congress who, once he got there, would be able to talk and persuade as he represented Wyoming, but not to vote. That right would only come with statehood.

A railroad in territorial politics

At that time, however, real power in Wyoming belonged not so much to any government as it did to the Union Pacific Railroad. The railroad was the largest private landowner in the territory and the largest non-government employer.

The railroad owned the towns, too. Anyone who wanted to start a store or build a house in town first had to buy the real estate from the railroad. However, Campbell and the other territorial officers had been in Cheyenne less than a month when Grenville Dodge, chief engineer for the Union Pacific, offered them each a free town lot.

“Dodge said the officers of the territory might each collect a lot in Cheyenne, and the R.R. Co. would donate it to them,” Campbell noted in his diary June 2. Whether this was meant as a gift, something more like a bribe, or something else, Campbell does not make clear in his diary. He also does not say whether he accepted it.

The first territorial elections were held Sept. 2, 1869. Stories circulated in the Republican papers that the Democrats were buying votes around Cheyenne. Whether they were or not, every man elected from the Territory—to the House, the Council, and the lone delegate to Congress—was a Democrat.

“Beaten at election,” Campbell wrote in his diary that day. Because he was an appointee, Campbell himself hadn’t been beaten, but the Republican Party in Wyoming had been whipped. The Grant government in Washington, Gould notes, began to look on Wyoming as a problem.

Because their jobs—and the money to run their Territorial government—depended on the good will of people in Washington, Campbell and the others always had to work hard to stay on good terms with the nation’s capital. Campbell spent months each year in the East visiting politicians, generals and railroad tycoons.

Yet as time went on, Gould has carefully shown, a kind of free-for-all developed, with various Wyoming Republicans working behind each others’ backs to blacken the reputations of their rivals as perceived by the higher-ups in Washington.

When the people elected a Republican delegate to Congress a year later, in 1870, it was a rare success for Campbell’s bruised political image back East.

As for the railroad, its officials assumed they had the right to steer Wyoming politics. But when they told Campbell they would be selecting the Republican candidate for Congress in 1870, the governor stood up to them.

He wrote Grenville Dodge on July 13, 1870 that he counted on the railroad’s support for the Republicans no matter who the candidate might be. Dodge backed off, agreeing the railroad would stay neutral. In the future, railroad officials were more careful to cover their political tracks.

Even though the Wyoming Republicans slowly began winning seats in the territorial legislature, bickering among them just got worse. By the end of 1870, the territorial officers had split into two factions, with Campbell, the editor of the Laramie newspaper and their allies on one side and the U.S. marshal and the new territorial secretary, who also edited one of the Cheyenne papers, on the other.

President Grant’s decisions made the problems even worse. When he heard complaints from one side, he fired men, and then reinstated them when he heard howls from the other side. All the officials in the territorial government had to spend a great deal of time keeping an eye on Washington, which left little time to get much else done of value in the territory.

A single-industry economy

The real problem was deeper. Wyoming Territory was simply too poor. Some gold mines had boomed briefly near South Pass but played out by 1870. Afterward, Wyoming had almost no gold, silver or copper mines like the ones that built the wealth of California, Utah, Idaho, Colorado and Montana in the middle and late 1800s. It also had almost no farmers growing crops, like the ones that steadied the wealth of Nebraska, Kansas, eastern Colorado and the Dakotas during the same years.

Despite Campbell’s response to Dodge about meddling in politics, the Territory was dependent upon a single industry—the railroad—and upon the federal government to keep money flowing in. All through the 1870s, about an eighth of all workers held railroad jobs and about a fourth held federal jobs. These were mostly soldiers, stationed at forts to be on alert for Indian attacks.

Given the weak economy and the importance to it of various kinds of federal subsidy and support, Gould notes, it seems almost inevitable in retrospect that keeping the federal funds flowing would become the main focus of territorial politics.

As for Campbell, he was reappointed in 1874. In 1875, Grant offered him a middle-level job in the U.S. State Department. He accepted and left Wyoming Territory, where, although he had not achieved as much politically as he had perhaps hoped, he had left behind a structure that would allow for a steadier kind of government, once politicians became more skillful.

And at least twice—once to the railroad and once to the Legislature when it tried to repeal votes for women—he had the nerve to stand up and do the right thing, without knowing if it would hurt him or not. And that counts for a lot.

CAMPBELL Genealogy

WikiTree is a community of genealogists growing an increasingly-accurate collaborative family tree that's 100% free for everyone forever. Please join us.

Please join us in collaborating on CAMPBELL family trees. We need the help of good genealogists to grow a completely free shared family tree to connect us all.


Born in Bristol, Pennsylvania, he earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he was a member of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity, [ citation needed ] and a doctor of philosophy from the University of Göttingen in Germany.

A nephew of the general manager of the Joseph Campbell Preserve Company, he went to work there in 1897 and invented condensed soup. [5] [6]

Dorrance went on to become the president of Campbell Soup Company from 1914 to 1930, eventually buying out the Campbell family. He turned the business into one of America's longest-lasting brands. He was succeeded by his brother, Arthur Dorrance.

In 1906 he married Ethel Mallinckrot, with whom he had five children.

Following Dorrance's death, there was significant litigation over his domicile for purposes of estate and inheritance tax. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that he was domiciled in Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that he was domiciled in New Jersey, and his estate was required to pay estate tax to both states. The estate sought relief in the United States Supreme Court, but the request for review was denied. [8]

Campbell, John

CAMPBELL, JOHN. (c. 1725–1806). British general. Born in Strachur, Scotland, Campbell entered the army in June 1745 as a lieutenant in Loudoun's Highlanders, then commanded by John Campbell, earl of Loudoun (the two men were not related). He served through the Second Jacobite Rebellion and took part in the Flanders campaign in 1747, after which he was promoted to captain. Appointed to the Forty-second Highlanders on 9 April 1756, Campbell was wounded at Ticonderoga in 1758. On 11 July 1759 he became a major of the Seventeenth Foot, and was promoted to lieutenant colonel on 1 February 1762. He commanded that regiment in the operations against Martinico and Havana in 1762. On 1 May 1773 he became lieutenant colonel of the Thiry-seventh Foot, and in 1776 he went to America with this regiment. During the Philadelphia campaign he was part of Sir Henry Clinton's force left in New York, and served as commander on Staten Island from 1777 to 1778. On 11 September 1777 he led a force that landed at Elizabethtown, New Jersey, with a dual mission. First, he hoped to create a diversion in favor of General William Howe's main army, which that day fought the Battle of Brandywine. He also planned to conduct a large-scale foraging operation through Newark. The raid netted some horses and livestock, which, according to General Clinton, "afforded a seasonable refreshment to the squadron and the army," but accomplished little more.

Around the end of November 1778, Clinton detached Lieutenant Colonel Archibald Campbell to take Savannah, Georgia, and General John Campbell to take command in West Florida. The latter was sent, at the suggestion of George Sackville (Lord Germain, then the British colonial secretary), with orders to capture New Orleans if Spain entered the war. On 19 February 1779 he was given the local rank of major general. Far from being able to execute the ambitious strategy proposed by Germain, who neglected the detail of sending him adequate means, Campbell was forced to surrender Pensacola to Spanish General Bernado de Galvez on 9 May 1781. Exchanged almost immediately, Campbell was promoted to lieutenant general, and the rank was made permanent on 28 September 1787. Ten years later he was made a full general. He died in 1806.

revised by Michael Bellesiles

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

"Campbell, John ." Encyclopedia of the American Revolution: Library of Military History. . Encyclopedia.com. 18 Jun. 2021 < https://www.encyclopedia.com > .

"Campbell, John ." Encyclopedia of the American Revolution: Library of Military History. . Encyclopedia.com. (June 18, 2021). https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/campbell-john

"Campbell, John ." Encyclopedia of the American Revolution: Library of Military History. . Retrieved June 18, 2021 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/campbell-john

Citation styles

Encyclopedia.com gives you the ability to cite reference entries and articles according to common styles from the Modern Language Association (MLA), The Chicago Manual of Style, and the American Psychological Association (APA).

Within the “Cite this article” tool, pick a style to see how all available information looks when formatted according to that style. Then, copy and paste the text into your bibliography or works cited list.


The Campbell family. were originally from Inverary, Argyllshire, connected with the famous Campbell clans of the Highlands of Scotland and emigrated to Ireland near the close of the reign of Queen Elizabeth—about the year 1600. The northern portion of Ireland received, at that period, large accessions of Scotch Protestants, who proved valuable and useful citizens. Here the Campbells continued to live for several generations, until at length John Campbell, with a family of ten or twelve children, removed to America in 1726, and settled first in Donegal, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, where we find one of his sons, Patrick Campbell, born in 1690, serving as a constable in 1729. About 1730, John Campbell, with three of his sons, Patrick among them, removed from Pennsylvania to what was then a part of Orange, now Augusta County, in the rich valley of Virginia. [4] Another authority assigns 1738 as the time of this migration. [5]

Orange County records (Source:Waddell, 1888 identify 1741 estate records for a John Campbell. These records are presumably for John (205) who is often given a 1741 DOD by genealogists, though a 1734 DOD us also given by some, as is a 1771 DOD. Grace is usually given a 1741 DOD by many genealogists, but others believe she lived on until 1771. The basis for the alternative DOD's for John, and all of the DOD's for Grace, has not been determined. While Augusta County records for their children (as identified by Draper, 1881) are identifiable in Chalkley's Chronicles, that work gives no records that can be clearly identified with John (205), and no records for a Grace or Grizzel Campbell. It may be that this couple lived in the portion of Orange County east of the Blue Ridge, that was not included in Augusta when that county formed in 1745. It seems likely, however, that John (205) died before the formation of Augusta, and likely died no later than 1741.

The following was extracted from Ancestry Public Member Trees July 18 2014

Ancestry Family Trees for John Campbell exact =Grace Hays Using = TreeExtraction.018 Date: July 18, 2014, 15:26:18 Run:John Campbell exact =Grace Hays

    Ovvan D. Edmondson, editior - 4747 Westminster Circle, Eagan, MN 55122-2756. Edmondson Family Association Bulletin
    Oct. - Dec., 1998, pg. 6. John Campbell is variously described as coming from Drumboden or Drumaboden, Kilmachrenan or Kilmacrenan, Donegal, Ireland. Drumaboden is a townland in Derry. Kilmacrenan is a nearby village. The village may or may not be in the townland. "Drumboden" could also refer to an estate name, in or near Kilmacrenan.

See:Drumaboden Townland When viewed July 5 2011 this page provided a map showing the location of Drumaboden Townland as immediately northeast of Kilmacrenan. This was the only match obtained for a Google search of "Drumaboden Townland"

Watch the video: Pharmacology (July 2022).


  1. Dakree

    Also than to understand it

  2. Mccoy

    Very valuable idea

  3. Lian

    What words are needed ... great, a wonderful phrase

  4. Xuthus

    I apologise, but it not absolutely approaches me. Who else, what can prompt?

  5. Kajijas


Write a message