The Historical Context of Martin v. Mott

Last week, I wrote about Judge Karin Immergut’s decision in Oregon v. Trump. That court order mostly hinged on the precedent of the Supreme Court’s 1827 decision in Martin v. Mott. Given that case’s age, its historical context is worth our familiarity.

Jacob E. Mott was a court-martialed militiaman in New York convicted for failing to muster in response to Governor Daniel D. Tompkins’s orders. The Governor’s orders were issued in response to a requisition of troops by President Madison in August of 1814, when the British had invaded Virginia, burned Washington, D.C., and attempted to invade Baltimore during the War of 1812. The immediate concern for Governor Tompkins was the British attack on Plattsburg, New York, in September 1814, launched across Lake Champlain. A military court convicted Mott in May 1818. To collect Mott’s fine, a U.S. Marshal seized Mott’s mule. Mott then filed suit to reclaim his animal, arguing that the court-martial lacked authority to prosecute him. He lost.

That’s just the facts, ma’am.

Eric Shierman lives in Salem and is the author of We were winning when I was there.