Sorry, I
meant the "well, whiggish" remark as a joke playing off the coincidence of names
of the Whig party and "Whig history." The fact that secession eventually
occurred, and was seen as a bad thing, gave new salience and value to the
nationalism that had been articulated by Marshall. As a perceived
precursor to Union nationalism, Marshall's stock rose and his career was seen as
more important. As a perceived precursor to Southern separation,
Jefferson's stock took a hit. But, of course, as Paul Finkelman points
out, Civil War historiography has included plenty of "lost cause" apologies
(though I don't know if the Dunning school had a view on
Marshall).
In response
to Bobby Lipkin's question ("What political values and
strategies did "Whigs" embrace?"): in brief, the Whigs were the other
major party competing with the Democrats from the early 1930s through the mid
1850s. They tended to emphasize a program of economic and industrial
development (high tariffs, a national bank, internal improvements), moral
reform, resistance to Jacksonian presidential power, and nationalism. The
best sources are Daniel Walker Howe, The Political Culture of the American Whigs
(1979), Michael F. Holt, The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party (1999),
and John Gerring, Party Ideologies in America (1998), ch. 3.
Keith
-----Original
Message-----
From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Robert Sheridan
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 5:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Initiation of Judicial Review
From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Robert Sheridan
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 5:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Initiation of Judicial Review
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 ReviewI'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
