What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States

Lawyers often make poor historians. That might strike some as counter-intuitive as precedents are by their nature `historical'. But legal precedents are a narrow technical field and though they can encompass the political, economic and social issues of their day the legal logic and argument that surround them are usually- with some major exceptions- divorced from them. And perhaps it's that their [the lawyer as historian] early years have been shaped by legal reasoning and in spite of exposure to history such as an undergrad or grad degree, this legal mindset often limits a more holistic approach to the subject matter. Not so with James F. Simon's "What Kind of Nation". Simon writing eschews the sort of legal analysis best left to law textbooks in favor of a clear, fairly encompassing and biographically based approach. And a fine approach it is. With healthy portions of legal analysis but an even finer biographer's paintbrush Simon comes close to bringing to life many of the individuals and their ideological stands. At the center is of course Jefferson and Marshall. Both get sympathetic, but honest treatment from Simon. Jefferson, the idealist, strongly holding the belief that favored the limiting of government and the Federalists as the greatest threat to liberty in the young nation. His horror at the Sedition acts and the steps taken by the Republicans are highlighted as are the equally strong beliefs and actions taken by the Federalists to implement them. Marshall is painted in an even finer light I think. Perhaps it's because Jefferson's more volatile temper got the best of him at times or perhaps Marshall's nature was to be a more moderating influence, he comes across a intelligent and subtle thinker. Read his approach to Marbury, where he takes the long road to come to his final conclusion. It was an approach that made upheld many of the Federalist tenets yet gave the victory to Jefferson. Masterfull. Simon does a great job in describing two important events in that era. The first is the impeachment of Samuel Chase a justice on the Supreme Court. Simon presents the legal arguments in clear precise prose. But he does more than that, he describes the individuals involved-their strengths and weaknesses, the drama behind the scenes and sets it all in the context of the political mechanizations of the era. Equally compelling is the description of Burr's fall from grace and subsequent trial for treason. Marshall and Jefferson's role in both events are given in some detail and their rationales analyzed within the framework of the issues each was faced with. James F. Simon has given a well written and immensely interesting picture of the dynamics between Jefferson and Marshall and the era in which they lived. With a clear, precise and entertaining writing style and with one foot firmly planted what seems like a historian's mindset I'm anxious to read more of his works. I would love to read a more in depth study of Chase or B

On a recent vacation to Colonial Williamsburg and Monticello, my 14-year-old nephew commented that Thomas Jefferson didn't get along with Alexander Hamilton. The four adults accompanying him replied patronizingly that Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr certainly didn't get along, but didn't remember anything between Hamilton and Jefferson...Of course, my nephew was absolutely correct. In an effort to rectify my obvious educational deficiency, I immediately embarked on a reading plan which led me to "What Kind of Nation", where I discovered that Thomas Jefferson also didn't along with John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.By the time I got to this book I had a pretty good feel for the politics of the period, having read "Founding Brothers" by Joseph Ellis, "Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington" by Richard Brookhiser, "Alexander Hamilton: American" by Richard Brookhiser and "James Madison" by Garry Wills. I believe this background helped me to maximize my enjoyment of "What Kind of Nation" because I was able to focus on Marshall's brilliance and perseverance in establishing the authority of the Supreme Court on an equal footing with the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Jefferson's antics were amusing, but old news. The way that Marshall dealt with Jefferson who was, after all, the President of the United States during the first 8 years of Marshall's 34 years as Chief Justice, is fascinating.James Simon does a great job of telling the story without getting overly technical with the legal side of things. I think he strikes just the right balance, so that the lay reader (i.e., non-lawyer) can appreciate the significance of Marshall's extraordinary accomplishments.

The world needs a book about John Marshall's contribution to America. In my opinion, "What Kind Of Nation" by James F. Simon is it. Though the nature of the subject almost guarantees that the reading will be somewhat dry, scholarly, and lawyerlike, the author did a nice job with it. As a scholar myself, I recommend it. If you're looking for an easy read on Thomas Jefferson, I also recommend Norman Thomas Remick's excellent book "West Point: Character Leadership Education, A Book Developed From Thomas Jefferson's Readings And Writings", in which West Point is posited as a metaphor for Jefferson's worldview of the way America ought to be.

I read "What Kind Of Nation" by James Simon and found it to be quite informative. I would recommend it, especially to those who have a legalistic bent. Is it about the early influence of the Court on what kind of nation? Yes. Is it the epic struggle that created the USA? No. For that, a book that could be called "the epic of the USA" is a good read entitled (and hold your breath) "West Point: Character Leadership Education, A Book Developed From The Readings And Writings Of Thomas Jefferson" by Norman Thomas Remick. Its the epic struggle of mankind that led to founding the USA. But that does not take away from my opinion that James F. Simon did a wonderful job with "What Kind Of Nation"

History is never finally written, and is subject to fashions and whims. It has been surprising over the past decade or so to find Thomas Jefferson's star falling. Certainly, he is on Mount Rushmore, and has a lovely memorial in Washington, and his words ringing of independence and freedom will be read forever. But a recent Jefferson biography was called _American Sphinx_, and we still don't know what to make of his holding slaves and fathering children by Sally Hemings. Now comes _What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States_ (Simon & Schuster) by James F. Simon. The book documents the great differences between the two men, their philosophies of government, and the particular court fights that defined the new republic, but it also makes clear that at almost every turn, Marshall snookered or thwarted Jefferson so that the new republic was guided on a course far from the Jeffersonian ideal.The two founders had plenty in common; they were distant cousins, both Virginia slaveholders, who took office in 1801, Jefferson as third President, and Marshall as fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But they loathed each other. In summary, Jefferson felt that the American Revolution had freed his country from power directed from foreign lands. He detested King George III, of course, but he had a high distrust of any strong central power. It was his idea that the strong unit of government was the state, and that the states had been united under the Constitution only into a loose confederacy. Marshall felt that the Constitution had made an essential change in the balance of powers, with a strong federal government able to make laws that would apply to all Americans, and also able to compel states to keep within federal bounds. What Simon has done is to show the specific legal battles that pitted one against the other and made Marshall's view victorious. He is a fine guide to landmark decisions in _Marbury vs. Madison_, the impeachment trial of Judge Samuel Chase, and the treason trial of Aaron Burr, all of which have affected our current government and even recent headlines.Repeatedly, Marshall's victories harassed and worried Jefferson, who wrote that "The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric." In a way this was true. Marshall's decisions indeed made the federal government, not a confederation, supreme in ways that Jefferson loathed, ways which would not be settled permanently until the Civil War. Just as important, his decisions made the Supreme Court an essential third part of the federal government, a role we take for granted today. Simon is a lawyer, and takes pains to show the legal niceties of the various decisions by which Marshall bested Jefferson. The ground he covers here is familiar, but in setting up the decisions as battles between the two foundi