John Marshall : Definer of a Nation

Rating:
Summary: Complete picture of Marshall the man, not just the jurist
Review: This is one of the best biographies I have read in recent years. While Marshall is best remembered today as the great Chief Justice and the originator of the notion of judicial review, Smith very much shows that there was more to the man, both public & private, than the few nuggets we all got in our Intro to American History classes.

In fact, the bulk of the book deals not with Marshall's 35 years on the bench, but with his other activities as a soldier, politician, diplomat and Secretary of State. One is left with profound admiration for Marshall's political skills while in Congress and in the Cabinet. As a moderate Federalist from Virginia, Marshall was in a tight spot, to say the least. His state was increasingly dominated with Jeffersonian Republicans who had little trust for the man, but on the other hand, the High Federalists from New England were more than a little suspicious of any Virginian, even one of their own party. Smith portrays a skillful politician & deal-maker who is able to walk deftly between the two camps and actually managed to get a few things done. One cannot help but wonder if the Federalist Party might have survived if Marshall had been at its helm or had been a Federalist candidate for president.

Marshall's time as a diplomat, spent in France during the years of the Directorate, also reveal him to be a canny negotiator who was more than equal to the task of dealing Talleyrand, the ultimate conniver of his time. Despite his somewhat rustic origins, Marshall was quite capable of adapting to the surroundings of the most cosmopolitan city in Europe, but without yielding to the corruption expected by the French bureaucracy.

All of this work by Smith shows that Marshall did not enter the Chief Justice's chair as a blank slate --- in fact, he already had a lifetime's experience in a myriad of different professions, and this no doubt contributed in large part to his great influence on the Court's development. I would suspect that his background is more impressive and varied than any of the Chief Justices that have succeeded him.

Unlike a lot of judicial histories, Smith does not get bogged down in the minutiae of the court decisions. In fact, relatively little time is spent discussing the decisions themselves, except for those that truly could be considered definitive. 35 years of court decisions could easily have made this an unworkable biography for Smith, who spends more time examining how Marshall, using his experience as a diplomat & legislator, was able to lead the court effectively and get it to render, for the most part, unanimous decisions.

Although Marshall & Thomas Jefferson were well-known as cousins who had a very strong mutual dislike of each other, Smith does not beat the reader over the head with this fact. Nor does Smith, despite his obvious partiality for Marshall, engage in excessive Jefferson-bashing. If anything, he gives Jefferson the benefit of the doubt, particularly in regards to the 1805 impeachment of Justice Chase. Smith regards the affair as being largely the making of rogue Congressional Republicans such as John Randolph of Roanoke (another cousin), although many historians believe that Jefferson had a much greater hand in instigating the affair.

The most Smith will criticize Jefferson on is his capacity for self-delusion, particularly where it concerned the Supreme Court. Jefferson came to regard the Marshall Court as an instrument of the Federalists, despite the fact that 5 of the 7 justices were Republican appointees. I find this to be an amusing parallel to modern-day criticism of the Court by some pundits, who view it as dominated by liberals --- despite the fact that 7 of the 9 justices have been appointed by Republican presidents. Evidently, some things never change.

This would also be a useful book for those critics of the court who feel that justices are too politically involved these days. A study of Court's history shows that rarely have the justices been political eunuchs, and certainly Marshall was no exception. Many of his decisions on the court, although he was careful not to run amok with judicial authority, were calculated as parries to the thrusts to various political extremists such as Spencer Roane (who, like most of the states'-rights crowd, comes off quite badly in this book, as Smith portrays him as being hopelessly out of step with the nations' evolution). Marshall as much as anyone was responsible for defining the notion that the federal government ultimately has authority over the respective states in national matters, a notion that would be put to the test a quarter century after Marshall's death.

Not only is this an informative book, but it is also very well-written and engaging. Do not let the 700+ pages daunt you, as the narrative flows quite briskly and will not bog the reader down. For most of us who know only know Marshall in connection with Marbury vs Madison, there is a lot more to the man than that --- this book will more than fill in the blank spaces.

Rating:
Summary: Complete picture of Marshall the man, not just the jurist
Review: This is one of the best biographies I have read in recent years. While Marshall is best remembered today as the great Chief Justice and the originator of the notion of judicial review, Smith very much shows that there was more to the man, both public & private, than the few nuggets we all got in our Intro to American History classes.

In fact, the bulk of the book deals not with Marshall's 35 years on the bench, but with his other activities as a soldier, politician, diplomat and Secretary of State. One is left with profound admiration for Marshall's political skills while in Congress and in the Cabinet. As a moderate Federalist from Virginia, Marshall was in a tight spot, to say the least. His state was increasingly dominated with Jeffersonian Republicans who had little trust for the man, but on the other hand, the High Federalists from New England were more than a little suspicious of any Virginian, even one of their own party. Smith portrays a skillful politician & deal-maker who is able to walk deftly between the two camps and actually managed to get a few things done. One cannot help but wonder if the Federalist Party might have survived if Marshall had been at its helm or had been a Federalist candidate for president.

Marshall's time as a diplomat, spent in France during the years of the Directorate, also reveal him to be a canny negotiator who was more than equal to the task of dealing Talleyrand, the ultimate conniver of his time. Despite his somewhat rustic origins, Marshall was quite capable of adapting to the surroundings of the most cosmopolitan city in Europe, but without yielding to the corruption expected by the French bureaucracy.

All of this work by Smith shows that Marshall did not enter the Chief Justice's chair as a blank slate --- in fact, he already had a lifetime's experience in a myriad of different professions, and this no doubt contributed in large part to his great influence on the Court's development. I would suspect that his background is more impressive and varied than any of the Chief Justices that have succeeded him.

Unlike a lot of judicial histories, Smith does not get bogged down in the minutiae of the court decisions. In fact, relatively little time is spent discussing the decisions themselves, except for those that truly could be considered definitive. 35 years of court decisions could easily have made this an unworkable biography for Smith, who spends more time examining how Marshall, using his experience as a diplomat & legislator, was able to lead the court effectively and get it to render, for the most part, unanimous decisions.

Although Marshall & Thomas Jefferson were well-known as cousins who had a very strong mutual dislike of each other, Smith does not beat the reader over the head with this fact. Nor does Smith, despite his obvious partiality for Marshall, engage in excessive Jefferson-bashing. If anything, he gives Jefferson the benefit of the doubt, particularly in regards to the 1805 impeachment of Justice Chase. Smith regards the affair as being largely the making of rogue Congressional Republicans such as John Randolph of Roanoke (another cousin), although many historians believe that Jefferson had a much greater hand in instigating the affair.

The most Smith will criticize Jefferson on is his capacity for self-delusion, particularly where it concerned the Supreme Court. Jefferson came to regard the Marshall Court as an instrument of the Federalists, despite the fact that 5 of the 7 justices were Republican appointees. I find this to be an amusing parallel to modern-day criticism of the Court by some pundits, who view it as dominated by liberals --- despite the fact that 7 of the 9 justices have been appointed by Republican presidents. Evidently, some things never change.

This would also be a useful book for those critics of the court who feel that justices are too politically involved these days. A study of Court's history shows that rarely have the justices been political eunuchs, and certainly Marshall was no exception. Many of his decisions on the court, although he was careful not to run amok with judicial authority, were calculated as parries to the thrusts to various political extremists such as Spencer Roane (who, like most of the states'-rights crowd, comes off quite badly in this book, as Smith portrays him as being hopelessly out of step with the nations' evolution). Marshall as much as anyone was responsible for defining the notion that the federal government ultimately has authority over the respective states in national matters, a notion that would be put to the test a quarter century after Marshall's death.

Not only is this an informative book, but it is also very well-written and engaging. Do not let the 700+ pages daunt you, as the narrative flows quite briskly and will not bog the reader down. For most of us who know only know Marshall in connection with Marbury vs Madison, there is a lot more to the man than that --- this book will more than fill in the blank spaces.

Rating:
Summary: An extremely well-written and well-researched biography.
Review: This is one of the best historical biographies I have ever read, full of interesting facts and insights into the life and character of a truly great American. The treatment of Jefferson was a little rough,though. I also found one very glaring inaccuracy which indicated that Smith's knowlegde of the Battle of Baltimore and North Point was limited. General Ross was not killed while "leading an attack on Fort McHenry" as stated on page 420. Ross died while leading his troops overland from North Point toward eastern Baltimore. Ross had nothing to do with the Naval bombardment of Fort McHenry observed by Francis Scott Key, author of the "Star Spangled Banner".

Smith's work is otherwise so excellent that I easily overlooked this histical slight to my hometown of Baltimore. I enjoyed his work as much as Grant's "Memoirs". Mr. Smith, please write a biography of Patrick Henry.

Rating:
Summary: An Incredible American Story
Review: This is the story of one of our greatest Americans. Many people know that John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who instituted many of the practices we take for granted today, such as judicial review of laws, and the ability to declare laws unconstitutional.

What you may not know is that even before becoming the Chief Justice, Marshall had a very distinguished life. Officer in the Continental Army of George Washington, member of the Virginia House of Delegates, and one of the key orators who convinced the Virginia Assembly to ratify the Constitution, Congressman, U.S. Secretary of State. He took a principled stand and became a minor hero for his role in the famous "XYZ Affair." His life is basically a phenomenal history of the early U.S.

Adams appointed him as Chief Justice almost as an afterthought, and Marshall succeeded by brilliantly uniting the court and always keeping an eye on the larger political winds.

As wonderful as this book is in covering his tenure on the Supreme Court, though, I found it most entertaining covering his earlier roles.

This is as good as it gets in a biography. You really feel like you know the man and his times.

Rating:
Summary: An Incredible American Story
Review: This is the story of one of our greatest Americans. Many people know that John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who instituted many of the practices we take for granted today, such as judicial review of laws, and the ability to declare laws unconstitutional.

What you may not know is that even before becoming the Chief Justice, Marshall had a very distinguished life. Officer in the Continental Army of George Washington, member of the Virginia House of Delegates, and one of the key orators who convinced the Virginia Assembly to ratify the Constitution, Congressman, U.S. Secretary of State. He took a principled stand and became a minor hero for his role in the famous "XYZ Affair." His life is basically a phenomenal history of the early U.S.

Adams appointed him as Chief Justice almost as an afterthought, and Marshall succeeded by brilliantly uniting the court and always keeping an eye on the larger political winds.

As wonderful as this book is in covering his tenure on the Supreme Court, though, I found it most entertaining covering his earlier roles.

This is as good as it gets in a biography. You really feel like you know the man and his times.

Rating:
Summary: Past Sheds Light On Present
Review: Those who decry the current state of judicial affairs in this country will be interested to learn that our modern court system has changed very little since its inception back in the 18th Century. This, along with many other scholarly insights, is the compelling undercurrent running through Jean Edward Smith's John Marshall: Definer of a Nation.

Smith, no stranger to scholarship himself, guides the reader in painstaking detail through the rise of one of the most renoun jurists of early American history, John Marshall. Marshall, who served his country first as a soldier under General George Washington and later as the first truly influential chief justice of the Supreme Court, is a figure ripe for investigation at this particularly legal-oriented period in our history. For it was Marshall who, in his landmark decision, Marbury v. Madison, first gave rise to the notion of judicial review, the concept that suggests that the Supreme Court indeed has final say over the constitutionality of a given state action.

What is fascinating about Marshall's life is how bitterly he had to fight to establish what we today take for granted, the Court's supreme authority. Marshall's relentless pursuit of a powerful judiciary was often at odds with the vision of his fellow founding father, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, who pushed for a small, decentralized federal government in a largely agrarian America, was constanly at odds with Marshall, and the tale of their stormy political battles resonates throughout the pages of Smith's biography.

Of course, the philosophical musings and feindishly political battles of our founding fathers may not make for interesting reading for everyone. Smith's book is chock full of obscure anectdotes and oftentimes difficult-to-get-through detail. All the same, the interested reader seeking to understand just how our current court system got to be this way can do worse than pick up Smith's tome for some insight. For, in the end, the battles fought between America's early political titans bear a strong correlation to -- and perhaps even explain -- blips on the judicial radar screen now called things like "O.J."