gutzmank

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 632 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Slavery in the south #15597
    gutzmank
    Member

    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.

    in reply to: Ratification of Amendment #21116
    gutzmank
    Member

    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.

    in reply to: “A more or less perfect Union” – Mini-Series #21102
    gutzmank
    Member

    I still haven’t seen it.

    in reply to: Madison and Judicial Supremacy #21114
    gutzmank
    Member

    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.

    in reply to: Is an Embassy or Consulate “foreign soil” #20510
    gutzmank
    Member

    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.

    in reply to: Slavery Reading List #20518
    gutzmank
    Member

    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.

    in reply to: John Marshall: Used Car Salesman or KIA Dealer? #21112
    gutzmank
    Member

    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.

    in reply to: Historiography of the Founding Era #21110
    gutzmank
    Member

    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.

    in reply to: Judicial Review v. Judicial Supremacy #21108
    gutzmank
    Member

    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.

    in reply to: Emergency powers? #21106
    gutzmank
    Member

    As I understand it, Congress has given the president authority to implement such measures.

    in reply to: Forrest McDonald on Jefferson and Hamilton #21895
    gutzmank
    Member

    McDonald was an avowed Hamiltonian. Certainly not a Straussian. I agree that his work, particularly Novus Ordo Seclorum, is superb.

    in reply to: the Unpleasant Question #21889
    gutzmank
    Member
    in reply to: Truthfulness of the Declaration #21372
    gutzmank
    Member

    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.

    in reply to: Revolution to Constitution: Radical or Conservative #21370
    gutzmank
    Member

    No, Thompson’s Adams book came out 20 years ago. I reviewed it at the time:

    https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=254

    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.

    in reply to: Common Good and Greater Good #21938
    gutzmank
    Member

    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.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 632 total)