Whig history is a somewhat insulting term for "winners" history. But, of course US history after the Civil War was not entirely Whiggish, as much of it was an apology for the "lost cause" rather than a praise for the Union Cause.
I hope all this helps.
Paul Finkelman
-- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189
918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Sheridan wrote:
Let me ask a question the answer to which I should probably look up elsewhere.When Prof. Whittington refers to the Whig Party in the U.S. I believe he refers to the party that succeeded the unpopular Federalists, the party of Hamilton, John Adams, and John Marshall, later succeeded by the Republicans of Lincoln, today's G.O.P. Is that right?The reference to history written after the U.S. Civil War as being "well, whiggish" also raised a question. "Whig history" is a term of art in the history of scientific theory. It refers to a fallacy in the form of writing history in which events are presented as though they were historically inevitable and for the good, representing progress and uplifting. I think Macauley's History of England is the leading example illustrative of this.When history is described as "well, whiggish," it could mean 'according to the beliefs of the Whig party in the U.S.,' or, I suppose it's a stretch, but it could've been meant in a sophisticated tongue-in-cheek way, to the effect that Marshall, Court supremacy, and judicial review as it has evolved were historical inevitabilities as to which we reap the benefits, there being no other good alternative, in the fallacious sense. In which sense was the term being used?Why would history written after the Civil War be written as 'whiggish' in either sense, come to think of it? Who was doing the writing?Bob SheridanSFLS----- Original Message -----From: Keith E. WhittingtonSent: 6/30/2003 11:19:12 AMSubject: Re: The Initiation of Judicial Review
I'm not so sure this is "one of those rare occasions where a particular individual had a profound effect on history." One of the nice elements of Newmyer's John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court (which, as the title implies, otherwise tends to go with this great-man view) is his late chapter on Marshall's changing reputation over time. Among Whigs and their successors in the mid-19th century, Marshall's nationalism made him a hero. While the Jacksonians were ascendant, Marshall didn't seem like all that profoundly effective of an individual (including to himself at the end of his life), but after the Civil War history is, well, whiggish. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Marshall gets celebrated for his defense of property rights, and thanks to conservative Gilded-Age Republicans Marshall looks very important as the voice of property and cou! ntermajoritarian judicial review. Later, he's the New Deal Marshall, and then the Cooper v. Aaron judicial supremacy Marshall. He's a man for all seasons, but I'm not sure he's effecting much.On the creation of modern judicial review by Republicans in the late nineteenth century, in addition to what's been mentioned, I'd add Davison Douglas, "The Rhetorical Uses of Marbury v. Madison," Wake Forest Law Review (forthcoming) and Keith Whittington, "To Support This Constitution," in Marbury v. Madison, eds. Graber and Perhac.Keith Whittington
