John Marshall

What a book and what a topic for a non-lawyer, early American history buff. I actually feel smarter now! Seriously, Jean Edward Smith does a great job of pulling a tremendous amount of primary source material into a seamlessly integrated biography on US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall. In large part, because of all the primary source quotes, the book reads slowly, but without videos, photographs, and voice recordings, that's the best way to learn about historical figures from that era. Smith's own writing, research, and overall understanding of the material and ability to convey that to the reader is excellent. I was not aware that John Marshall was so involved in Virginia politics after the War and was asked multiple times by fellow Virginian George Washington to take on major positions, only to be rebuffed. He was so highly admired even before he entered the Supreme Court. So, the first 300 pages cover Marshall's career leading up to his nomination. The next 200+ pages cover his tenure on the Supreme Court. What is really nice, though, about the way Smith handles the biography, is that he constantly brings back recurring theme's in Marshall's life, whether it is Marshall's ability to get along with people from either side of the aisle and his remarkable affability and love of Madeira wine, or his plain old good judgment and belief in the supremacy of the Union, or his dedication to his job and the country and his ability to strengthen the Supreme Court by striving for unanimous decisions and collegiality among the individual Supreme Court justices. And obviously, Smith does a good job of putting the importance of Marshall's decisions in perspective in his time and today. I've read perhaps 40 books on early American history, but John Marshall and the role of the Supreme Court has always been a black box or a side story. Smith does a great job of fleshing this out for me. Additionally, as always it is interesting to view history from different perspectives, and this book does a nice job of doing that all the way from the War of Independence through Andrew Jackson's reign. Thank you Jean Edward Smith for your efforts.

John Marshall is primarily remembered as the great chief justice who handed down many of the decisions that defined the constitutional structure, which law students read every year and judges are still dealing with nearly two centuries later. But in his wonderful biography, Smith shows the full picture of Marshall and his significant influence prior to his chief justiceship. Marshall was a soldier during the Revolution who later entered Virginia politics somewhat unwillingly. He was a well respected lawyer who eventually earned a sizable fortune, unlike most of his contemporaries who inherited theirs. Smith provides all of this in a clear and detailed manner. Also, he avoids one of the great problems that biographers of the founding era have: the extreme focus many place upon private lives of these men while limiting coverage of their public acts. Smith explains Marshall's private life without obsessing on it unnecessarily. Of course, most purchasers of this book are looking for information on Marshall's years on the bench and his impact upon the Constitution. All of the cases one would expect are dealt with in a thorough manner: Marbury, McCullough, Martin, Gibbons. The best part is of this book is that Smith goes beyond these great cases and provides detail on earlier caselaw that demonstrates Marshall's, and the Court's, commitment to nationalistic constitutional interpretations well before the seminal cases. This defeats criticism that claims Marshall had no support for his arguments, a criticism that develops from his habit of not citing to precedent. Particularly, some of the early unknown cases dealt with interesting issues of the war power and international law. Smith's biography is detailed and compelling, I couldn't put it down. Even though I have a pretty strong knowledge of constitutional history and of the Marshall era, Smith's book provided a wealth of information on details that I had little idea even existed. I would strongly recommend it to both people interested in legal history as well as those interested more broadly in political history.

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

I am neither a historian nor an academic. But I am a journalist who covers the courts, and I have frequently heard attorneys mutter this or that about the "infamous" Marbury v. Madison decision. I bought the book after visiting the Supreme Court and read it immediately upon my return. Smith's narrative is well paced. And the historic content is not presented like a textbook or even a well-written academic tome. Rather, it reads like a biography should, telling the tale based on letters and other memorabilia and done so without excessive interpretation. While I was aware of Marshall's significant place in history in terms of Marbury v. Madison, I had no idea of his key roles in other events that shaped our nation. If you like history but don't like academic minutia, you will love this book as I have.

Although a long-time Jefferson fan, I could not put this book down about his "nemesis". Marshall turns out to have been every bit as patriotic, anti-party and fair minded as Jefferson is reputed to have been. As the author points out, it is hard to believe how two men that were so alike could dislike each other so much. Rather than ascertain the cause of their dislike, the author was very honest in stating that there doesn't seem to be any one particular instance to give reason to such enmity. As a matter of fact, the two men were related and Jefferson, as president, had appointed Marshall's father to an important surveyor's post. The author goes to great length to give Jefferson his due and to not be vindictive. While the author obviously likes Marshall, he does not play favorites or make excuses for his subject. He explains both men's actions and motivations and stresses that both were generally after the same goals for America. As he has in recent works, Jefferson did come across as a bit petulant and vindictive in some of his actions and reactions. I couldn't help many times agreeing with Marshall's points of view when looked at from a practical or legal point (independence of the courts, commerce clause protection, laws of contracts, strong national government and anti-nullification). He was also anti-slavery in a mild, southern way. Mr. Marshall comes across as a very bright, unpretentious, extremely likable man to friend and foe alike. He was able to prevent political differences from damaging friendships and always displayed a big heart (including leading local efforts to raise money to help the estate of the deceased Jefferson). Because of his personality and leadership style, this man was able to dignify the Supreme Court's position and led it to record an astounding proportion of unanimous decisions, helping the court not to avoid looking divided on important issues. The book is very well written and despite its apparent thickness it was a delight to read about such a relatively little-known giant in our history. I rank Marshall and Madison as probably the two least credited men in our history for getting the republic on firm ground and for tempering the extreme positions that people like Jefferson, Patrick Henry, state rightists and several High Federalists were advocating. No student or aficionado should miss reading this important work.