Forum Replies Created
If the South had not seceded, slavery would have continued in the seceding states indefinitely. Abolitionists–people who wanted to use the Federal Government to get rid of slavery in, e.g., Alabama–were very few and unpopular, even in the north.
No, once a state is part of the union, it is bound by the Constitution of the union, which can be amended by either Article V processes.
I still haven’t seen it.
I understand him to have meant that the courts would have the final say in a particular legal dispute, but not when it came to, say, the text of the Constitution–which the Congress and states could alter.
The idea of this general forum is that people will answer it if they want to. As you may post any inquiry you’d like on any subject here, it’s not guaranteed that any of the faculty members will know answers to these questions. We do reply to questions posted in the forums related to specific courses.
For an introduction, Kolchin, American Slavery.
For a sweeping synthesis, Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll.
For the three major American slave systems, Berlin, Many Thousands Gone.
For slavery’s cultural impact, Sobel, The World They Made Together.
An excellent and enlightening comparative account is Kolchin, Unfree Labor: American Slavery and Russian Serfdom.
I also quite like Genovese, The Slaveholders’ Dilemma.
The classic treatment of 100+ years ago is Phillips, American Negro Slavery.
Taylor’s The Internal Enemy: Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832 is well written and of inherent interest.
If you want suggestions on any other subtopics, just ask.
He has always been admired by nationalists–that is, by people who wanted the government to be increasingly centralized. Charles Hobson, the editor of his Papers, characterizes Marshall’s as a common-law approach to constitutional law, which of course is an alternative approach to that of Madison, Jefferson, Roane, Taylor, et al., who began by asking what the people thought the Constitution was going to mean when they ratified it.
Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution marked the break between the Progressive approach to the Revolution/Founding and the ideological approach, which remains dominant now. Wood extended his teacher Bailyn’s attitude into the Philadelphia Convention and ratification.
McDonald essentially hoed his own row. He didn’t adopt either the republican or the liberal (Joyce Appleby’s and Drew McCoy’s) approach to the era.
Prof. McClanahan and I agree that both Martin and Cohens were wrongly decided; that’s not the same as saying the Supreme Court didn’t have jurisdiction to decide Cohens–with which McClanahan may or may not agree. Judicial review doesn’t equal judicial supremacy, as Jefferson explained in his September 6, 1819 letter to Chief Judge Spencer Roane of the Virginia Court of Appeals. No, I don’t think Marshall is saying the other two branches can ignore the Constitution, which is for the Supreme Court alone to interpret. Again, see Jefferson to Roane.
As I understand it, Congress has given the president authority to implement such measures.
McDonald was an avowed Hamiltonian. Certainly not a Straussian. I agree that his work, particularly Novus Ordo Seclorum, is superb.
Give this a listen.
Yes, it’s certainly true that George III hadn’t personally committed/been responsible for some of the acts with which the Declaration charges him. British response to the Declaration generally was to find the list of allegations against him either risible or bewildering. The reason he was named rather than Parliament or a past king is that the colonists had long since agreed Parliament was, as Jefferson said in “A Summary View of the Rights of British America,” “foreign to our constitutions and unknown to our laws” (or some such), and so what remained was to accuse the king of having wantonly violated colonists’ rights.
Of course, his August 1775 proclamation that the colonies were in rebellion, thus the complaining colonists were beyond his royal protection, satisfied many waverers that the tie to George III had to be severed.April 17, 2020 at 10:53 pm in reply to: Revolution to Constitution: Radical or Conservative #21370
No, Thompson’s Adams book came out 20 years ago. I reviewed it at the time:
You ask, “Do you agree with Wood when he says that the Constitution was radical because it represented a shift from the Ciceronian/Whig view of the executive and judicial branches representing the upper classes while the legislature represented the people to a more democratic one based on dispersed popular sovereignty, or do you personally agree with Jensen and Sheldon Richman that the Constitution was a conservative reaction to the forces of democracy unleashed by the Revolution and embodied in the Articles?” That’s a false choice. Both Wood’s claim and the one you attribute to Jensen and Richman are correct.
Here we get to the 1970s dispute among scholars over the difference between republican and democratic societies. The former stressed the need for a virtuous citizenry, we were told. You can find more on this subject in Lance Banning’s The Jeffersonian Persuasion, Gordon Wood’s The Creation of the American Republic, and, if you want to trace the rebirth of this notion all the way back to the 16th century, Pocock’s The Machiavellian Moment.