The meaning of an object changed when in the hands of an authority figure. Swords, watches, and walking sticks became tools of the state when a county sheriff used them to lead ceremonies, begin court sessions on time, and ward off protestors. Officers routinely displayed instruments and objects such as the sheriff’s sword to showcase their coercive authority to resolve and negotiate disputes. My article, “The Sheriff’s Sword” in the Journal of the Early Republic, argues that county sheriffs shaped local perceptions of state power through their intimate understanding of their communities. Expanding upon this argument, officers relied upon paper to publicly display this power. While swords and staffs provided a symbol of force, simple pieces of paper served as the most ubiquitous instrument to disperse the state’s authority throughout communities. Sheriffs and their deputies maintained an advantage when, as they approached a person’s front door or encountered someone on the street, they pulled a scrap of paper with notes and numbers from their coat pockets. Paper is powerful, and in the early republic law officers created a narrative through the paperwork they administered. The authority of printed state documents did not prevent sheriffs or deputies from abusing their power, and paperwork, as a management device, could produce ruinous results.[1]

An 1824 example of a poster advertising a sheriff’s sale. Courtesy of the Library Company of Philadelphia.

The administration of public auctions depended upon sheriffs’ management of paperwork to seize property and advertise the pending sale. Courts ordered the sale of both personal property and real estate when debtors failed to resolve their financial disputes or repay their lenders for debts. Officers captured a passerby’s attention by utilizing a formulaic approach for announcing pending auctions. A thirteen-by-ten-inch piece of paper was routinely headlined by the phrase “Sheriff’s Sale” or “Constable’s Sale” and displayed the date, time, a description of the auctioned property, the legal authority being exercised, and administering officer’s name. Easy to post by nailing to a fence or courthouse wall, these announcements served as a public display of the state’s coercive authority to seize property and resolve disputes throughout their towns and counties. Sheriffs and their deputies documented their temporary ownership and transferal of property through deeds, which enabled officers to serve as an intermediary who could transfer property to an auction’s highest bidder. An increase in the number of sheriff deeds from the late eighteenth to the early nineteenth century reflected the public’s growing reliance on law officers to resolve financial disputes. From 1784 to 1786, the Chester County, Pennsylvania Sheriff’s Office issued 54 deeds while the Office issued 186 sheriff deeds from 1817 to 1819.[2] The advertisements and deeds contributed to the public’s understanding that sheriffs were called upon to seize and redistribute capital that grew stagnant in the hands of debtors.

The pursuance of legal resolutions to resolve financial disputes in the years following the Panic of 1819 contributed to political and social debates regarding the sheriff’s role in preserving the peace. The increased number of sheriff sales in Pennsylvania generated a political toll for the state leadership. Opponents of Pennsylvania Governor Joseph Hiester, who campaigned on a promise to reduce sheriff sales, reported the surge of “180 sheriff sales in 10 counties” occurring in a single week during Hiester’s administration.[3] In addition to the rate at which sheriff sales were occurring, communities criticized officers who ignored the social consequences of their actions. Attorney John Douglass, who ran for the Philadelphia County Sheriff in 1823, received criticism for his involvement in the legal prosecution of an elderly woman who failed to pay her rent named Catharine Robinson—a widow of a Revolutionary War soldier. Consequently, Douglass issued a writ against Robinson and all her belongings, including “her bed and blanket” and “bible and psalm book.” A local constable seized the materials and auctioned them away. While Douglass’s supporters contended that he would execute the law “in mercy,” his opponents showcased Robinson’s case as an example of Douglass’s “unmitigated harshness.” Interestingly, in the years surrounding the Panic of 1819 communities continued to prioritize the law over charity—Douglass secured the Philadelphia County Sheriff’s Office in November 1823.[4] Increased rates of sheriff sales and the respective advertisements contributed towards a growing belief that county officers supported the external interests of a capitalist rather than those of their own community members.

Hand-written notice of sheriff’s sale, Harrison County, Indiana, 1817. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Early nineteenth-century capitalistic transformations were fostered by local officers completing paperwork that shaped the public’s understanding of the state’s involvement in maintaining the political economy. Centering paper and other routine items as instruments of coercive force reshapes long-held images of the Hollywood depiction of law enforcement officers, who relied upon badges and handguns to create their authority. Americans commonly encountered county officers through their performance of duty such as delivering court writs, supporting auctions, and leading ceremonies. The sheriffs’ role and place atop the legal hierarchy shifted in the years following the Civil War. States and cities increasingly relied upon federal marshals and professional police forces to maintain order. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, legislative reforms designed to curtail the power of officers led many county sheriffs to enter office through public elections rather than gubernatorial appointments. These changes increasingly led sheriffs towards being affiliated with new forms of paper—election ballots and campaign posters—to display their connections to political and economic power.

Endnotes

[1] Ben Kafka, The Demon on Writing: Powers and Failures of Paperwork (New York, 2012), 9. Kafka’s evaluation of paperwork addresses problems created by the law enforcement paperwork surprises such as an incomplete ballot, a court warrant with the wrong address, or an incomprehensible tax form. For broader discussions over how courts and officers asserted their authority through a material culture, see Benjamin H. Irvin, Clothed in the Robes of Sovereignty: The Continental Congress and the People Out of Doors (Oxford,UK, 2011); Martha J. McNamara, From Tavern to Courthouse: Architecture and Ritual in American Law, 1658-1860 (Baltimore, 2004).

[2] Pennsylvania, Index to Sheriffs’ deeds, dockets [microform]; Sheriffs’ docket books 1-7, 1773–1850, PA Chapter 168, Historical Society of Pennsylvania (HSP), Philadelphia.

[3] “Hiester’s Better Times,” Lancaster Intelligencer (PA), Aug. 18, 1821.

[4] Who Shall Be Our Next Sheriff (Philadelphia, 1823), 3–5, Pamphlet,HSP .