What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Stru

by James F. Simon

What Kind of Nation is a riveting account of the bitter and protracted struggle between two titans of the early republic over the power of the presidency and the independence of the judiciary.

The clash between fellow Virginians (and second cousins) Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall remains the most decisive confrontation between a president and a chief justice in American history. Fought in private as well as in full public view, their struggle defined basic constitutional relationships in the early days of the republic and resonates still in debates over the role of the federal government vis-à-vis the states and the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret laws.

Jefferson was a strong advocate of states' rights who distrusted the power of the federal government. He believed that the Constitution defined federal authority narrowly and left most governmental powers to the states. He was suspicious of the Federalist-dominated Supreme Court, whose members he viewed as partisan promoters of their political views at the expense of Jefferson's Republicans. When he became president, Jefferson attempted to correct the Court's bias by appointing Republicans to the Court. He also supported an unsuccessful impeachment of Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase.

Marshall believed in a strong federal government and was convinced that an independent judiciary offered the best protection for the Constitution and the nation. After he was appointed by Federalist President John Adams to be chief justice in 1801 (only a few weeks before Jefferson succeeded Adams), he issued one far-reaching opinion after another. Beginning with the landmark decision Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and through many cases involving states' rights, impeachment, treason, and executive privilege, Marshall established the Court as the final arbiter of the Constitution and the authoritative voice for the constitutional supremacy of the federal government over the states.

As Marshall's views prevailed, Jefferson became increasingly bitter, certain that the Court was suffocating the popular will. But Marshall's carefully reasoned rulings endowed the Court with constitutional authority even as they expanded the power of the federal government, paving the way for later Court decisions sanctioning many pivotal laws of the modern era, such as those of the New Deal, the Great Society, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In a fascinating description of the treason trial of Jefferson's former vice president, Aaron Burr, James F. Simon shows how Marshall rebuffed President Jefferson's claim of executive privilege. That decision served as precedent for a modern Supreme Court ruling rejecting President Nixon's claim that he did not have to hand over the Watergate tapes.

More than 150 years after Jefferson's and Marshall's deaths, their words and achievements still reverberate in constitutional debate and political battle. What Kind of Nation is a dramatic rendering of a bitter struggle between two shrewd politicians and powerful statesmen that helped create a United States.

Genres: History, American History, Politics, Nonfiction, Law, Presidents, Biography

473 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 26, 2002

About the author

James F. Simon is the Martin Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus at New York Law School. He is the author of seven previous books on American history, law, and politics. His books have won the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel Award and twice been named New York Times Notable Books. He lives with his wife in West Nyack, New York.

Reviews

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

This purpose of this book is to illustrate the disparate views of national governance John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson held.

That seems straightforward, but it took me a while to get oriented to that basic premise.

When I started the book, I thought I would be reading a cohesive storyline, a work of narrative nonfiction that has a starting point and then seamlessly progresses through time. But after being jostled about for a few chapters, I realized how the book was actually structured. So allow me to save you some pain: reading this book is like flipping through a photo album. Each picture (i.e. chapter) has its own story. They are roughly chronological, but any given snapshot is not necessarily related to the one that came before nor the one that comes after.

Having adjusted to the format, I finally had my bearings. But I again found my expectations unfulfilled at another point. I was awaiting confrontational fireworks at some stage. When I closed the book, I was still waiting.

Marshall and Jefferson disdained each other. Simon makes that clear. These two men recorded disparaging remarks about the other in their journals and each laid circuitous plots to foil their opponent. But when, in several supreme court cases, the issue came to a head, both were careful (and even conciliatory) so as not to cause an explosion. That was unexpected to me given the infamous interpersonal conflicts that were given vent without restraint in those days (hello Hamilton anyone?)

But there is one element of Simon's writing that completely overwhelms any perceived deficiency: He is fair. Eminently. Unwaveringly. It is actually remarkable. He is the most skilled author I have ever encountered in this regard. It's not that he's a fence-sitter. He has an opinion. But he is able to take an issue, express why Marshall or Jefferson took the view they did, analyze the strengths and weaknesses of that position, and then offer other courses that could have been taken and what effects they may have carried in that alternative history.

That singular trait lifts the entire book.

[Alan Tomkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Truly excellent. I regret that I had put off reading this book under the assumption that though it was likely a worthy read, it would most probably be rather dry. Not the case at all. I was fascinated by this history of the political contests between John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson regarding the development of the very nature, scope, function, and form of the federal government, especially in regards to its relationship to the states, and the respective sovereignty of both. None of it was a forgone conclusion, and it all could have turned out so differently. The author excels at bringing the times and their controversies into vivid clarity. I've read many accounts of Aaron Burr's nebulous plots in the west, but none that explained Blennerhassett's and Wilkinson's roles so extensively. I feel like I finally have some satisfactory understanding of that drama and of Marshall's ruling in Burr's treason trial. This is great narrative history from a legal expert who makes both the political and legal aspects easy to understand and interesting to read about. Really, any and all American history enthusiasts should read this book.

[Abby Burrus · Rating 4 out of 5]

To be honest, I can't write as full of a review as I want to with the time that I have.
First of all, this is an extensively researched book. Good grief, I want to say there's between 5 to 15, perhaps 20 pages dedicated in the back to the resources used! I appreciate all the effort that was put into it.
I also appreciate that the author was fairly non-biased, as far as I could tell. Really, the book is an narrative of the competing constitutional theories that emerged after the Constitution was ratified, focusing on the two key leaders of each theory. The first 100 pages explain how it ended up with Marshall as chief justice and Jefferson as president, then the rest is about the ensuring legal battles. Spoiler: At first, they try to avoid a head on collision and are for the most part successful.
But not so much in later years, especially with the treason trials of Aaron Burr, Jefferson's first vice president.
Now, you could easily get lost in all the details of these cases. But Mr. Simon does a good job of outlining what the case is about, why this decision would affect the competition between the two theories and what it would mean, the legal arguments put forth by lawyers, and summarizing Marshall's rulings. It's dense stuff, sure, but only as much as is needs to be and so long as I read slowly enough, I could understand it. And I'm not someone who gets into that type of stuff. But believe me, if I ever need ideas for political intrigue / legal battles with my own books, this'll probably be a place I go for inspiration.
Spoiler: Ultimately, it was Marshall who had the lasting effect and not Jefferson.
I believe these two different philosophies about state and federal government rights was part of what led to the Civil War. Both men, in their own way, had good ideas and were good men, I think. I think it's a shame that they were such enemies of one another, and assumed the worst about each other's motives and political theories.
I am glad that I had the chance to read this book. Will I read it again? I'm not sure, for while I did enjoy it, it took me awhile to get through it, and that time could be spent reading other books. But I don't regret reading it at least this once.

[Jeremy Perron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall were two of the most important men in our nation's history. They both served in the American Revolution, Jefferson more famously as the author of the Declaration of Independence and as diplomat, and Marshall as a junior officer in George Washington's army. Their careers, however, would intersect when they both reached their pinnacle. Thomas Jefferson as President of the United States and John Marshall as the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. The battles between the Jefferson Administration and the Marshall Court were critical in shaping the government that we know today. In his work, What Kind of Nation, Simon describes these battles and recreates the world from which they had been fought.

Since Jefferson in this stage of his life, his political career from the 1770s onward, is better known even amongst us plain general knowledge historians, I found some of his descriptions on Marshall's career far more interesting. George Washington's recruitment of him as a congressional candidate, during a visit to Mount Vernon, with the former president's nephew Bushrod, is one such adventure.

"Over the next four days, Washington flattered, cajoled, and entreated both men to agree to become candidates for Congress. Bushrod could not, and did not, refuse his esteemed uncle. Bust Marshall balked, even when Washington arrange another festive banquet in his honor in nearby Alexandria. He must make good on his debt, Marshall told Washington, and a seat in Congress would not allow him to do so. Finally, on the fourth day, Marshall decided to leave before sunrise to avoid another confrontation with his mentor. But Washington, anticipating his guest's early departure, greeted him on the piazza--in full military uniform--and made a last plea to Marshall." p.68

Marshall would not serve in Congress long. President Adams makes him the country's new Secretary of State, after getting rid of his previous Hamilton-dominated Cabinet officers. After Adams stunning defeat to his own vice president, Thomas Jefferson, in the election of 1800, Adams begins to stuff the court with Federalist judges, appointing his own Secretary of State, Mr. Marshall, to the top job.

This sets the stage for the great battles that take place between the two American icons. The most famous of these is without a doubt, Marbury vs. Madison. The circumstances for this are very odd, and Simon points out in his book there were many reasons that the Chief Justice could have abstained from the case. Marshall was the Secretary of State whose commissions his predecessor refused to deliver. However, he carefully danced around those issues and gave the most important decision ever. He did not rule against the Jefferson Administration, in fact, they received what they originally asked for. He also ruled a part of the law, the part that gave the Supreme Court more power no less, unconstitutional.

"But although Marshall had satisfied the Republicans' short-term interests by rejecting Marbury's claim, he had purchased an enormous piece of constitutional real estate for the Court. Marbury v. Madison established the Court's authority to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, a power that would prove to be of historic significance in securing the institution's parity with Congress. Marshall's opinion also served notice that the Court, not the president, would be the ultimate judge of claims or executive privilege, an authority of seismic proportions." p.187

Political battles raged the removal of justices sought through the method of impeachment, once successfully with John Pickering, once unsuccessfully with Samuel Chase. Ironically, the presiding officer of the impeachment trials was outgoing Vice President Aaron Burr who Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party had dumped in favor of George Clinton. The vice president had just been just been acquitted in a murder trial over the death of Alexander Hamilton*. Simon describes a Vice President Burr who is eager to have on grandee final on the stage of American politics, and give Thomas Jefferson more fits**.

A few years after his tenure as vice president, Burr is on trial himself for alleged treason to the country, the judge in his trial was none other than Chief Justice John Marshall who was riding circuit as Supreme Court justices did in Marshall's time***. Simon tells this story in stunning detail and great analysis.

"The Burr prosecution produced an ironic reversal of roles for Jefferson and Marshall. The president, author of the Declaration of Independence and a supporter of many of the individual rights contained in the Bill of Rights, pursued Burr and his associates with a vengeance that ignored basic civil liberties. The chief justice, whose major libertarian concern was the protection of private property, became the vigilant defender of criminal suspects' constitutional rights." p.258

In his battles with Alexander Hamilton, one can conclude that Thomas Jefferson won in life and fame but Alexander Hamilton ended up with the nation that he, not Jefferson, wanted. With John Marshall, Jefferson is still more famous nationally and internationally, but Marshall's career as chief justice surpassed Jefferson's presidency by twenty-six years and his life by nine; in addition, it was Marshall's view on the Constitution that prevailed, not Jefferson's. With a brilliant narrative, James Simon brings these epic legal battles from the past back to life.

*Burr had killed Hamilton in a now famous duel, but the jury ruled it was a `fair fight' and he was not guilty of murder.

**As if almost stealing the election of 1800 was not enough.

***This process ended in the early twentieth century.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: Simon's book summarizes the struggle between John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson to define the character of American Federal government, focusing particularly on Marshall's role in creating a strong judicial branch. A good book for anyone interested in post-Revolutionary War American history or in early constitutional law.

About the only thing John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson had in common was that both were Virginians. Jefferson was enamored of all things French while Marshall broke off talks with France following the XYZ Affair, in which French officials basically demanded bribes in order to enter into treaty negotiations with the young country. Marshall risked war rather than be party to this, although he characteristically stopped short of calling for war, showing the measured judgment that would characterize his career.

More than this Jefferson's agrarian vision was for a limited federal government that allowed to states all power not expressly given the federal government. Likewise, Jefferson wanted to limit the Federalist dominated judiciary. Marshall had a very different vision of the needs of the country, and as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court a very different vision for the place of the court as a co-equal branch of the government rather than the poor step-child he inherited.

James F. Simon gives us a vivid account of the tension between the Jefferson the Republican and Simon the Federalist. Unlike Adams and Jefferson, these two men would never be reconciled to one another. Perhaps the most famous encounter, which Simon covers in detail is that resulting in the Marbury v. Madison decision, that uphold the Jefferson administration's refusal to deliver Marbury's commission to serve as Justice of the Peace of the District of Columbia. This was one of a number of last minute appointments by John Adams. While this appeared to be a victory for Jefferson, Marshall based his decision on the ruling that the provision of the Judicial Act of 1789 under which Marbury brought his suit was in fact unconstitutional. What Marshall's decision for the Court did was establish the principle of judicial review, which allowed the Supreme Court an expanded role in determining the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress. No longer was the court the poor step-child or "least dangerous branch."

The book goes on to describe further clashes between the two over attempts to impeach judges including fellow justice Chase, and in the treason trial of Aaron Burr. In each instance, Simon portrays a Jefferson who attempts to use political influence toward these ends only to be countered by the careful legal reasoning of Marshall. In the Burr trial, Marshall made a key ruling against Jefferson's claim of executive privilege in withholding key evidence against Burr. Even after Jefferson was out of office, they continued to be on opposite sides of a series of states rights cases (Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and McCulloch v. Maryland) that established precedence of federal over state law, nurturing the tensions that would eventually flare up in America's Civil War.

In Simon's account, Marshall comes out looking far better than Jefferson. I suspect some historians with a stronger states rights bias would see things quite differently. But what Simon makes clear is the distinctive contribution of Marshall to this day in the form of a strong federal government, limits on executive privilege and states rights, and a doctrine of judicial review which truly established the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch of government.

[Nathan Eberline · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read "What Kind of Nation" concurrently with Ron Chernow's "Hamilton." It is a worthwhile exercise to read about similar timelines from different perspectives. "What Kind of Nation" is a joint biography of Thomas Jefferson and our nation's fourth Chief Justice and Federalist, John Marshall. Because Hamilton (Federalist) and Jefferson (Republican) so often found themselves at odds, it was helpful looking at their disagreements from the perspective of authors who were immersed in the history and character of political foes. Treating "Hamilton" and "Nation" as companion books illuminated the subtleties that transformed a number of our early forefathers from allies to adversaries.

James Simon did an excellent job of looking at the adversarial nature of early Republicans and Federalists by exploring the interactions between Jefferson and Marshall. Simon is a professor of law at New York Law School, and the book occasionally reads as a case-law summary. The degree of description for some of the cases will be interesting for attorneys, though I suspect less so for non-lawyers. This is a small critique that I only offer for individuals considering the book. Regardless of this, I recommend "What Kind of Nation" for both lawyers and non-lawyers because it provides a helpful foundation for the challenges that faced the early Supreme Court and why those issues matter today.

Simon's book lends insight into the history of legislators criticizing the judiciary, the rural parties arguing with urban, and the states wrestling for power with the federal government. Even if a reader chooses to skim the more detailed case descriptions, I am confident there is still plenty to glean at how the Court fits into the checks and balances of power and how brilliantly Marshall lead the Court before there was a template on what the Court should be. Because of the occasional slow spots in the caselaw, I marked this as a 4-star book, but 4.5 is more accurate. It was a great way to explore the early era of the Supreme Court, and it spurred in me an interest to read more about the significant Justices who served on the bench.

[Brian Willis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book, a closer look at the legal battles between the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Supreme Court from 1800-1824, is for the reader who wants to read the legalistic details of key decisions of the Marshall Court. In that sense, this is really a book about the Supreme Court, and because of the scope on Marshall, how the Supreme Court truly became a third, co-equal branch of the US government. If you don't like to read 8-10 pages going into the details of landmark cases, almost like the summary of the facts of the case like a legal brief, this might not be the book for you. However, for those who read about this era in history through historical surveys or Jefferson biographies, and want to read more about the legal cases that established the Supreme Court and the supremacy clause of the Constitution that allows the federal government to overrule state laws when they conflict, this is your book.

The first 100 pages are essentially a dual biography of Marshall and Jefferson leading up to Jefferson's election in 1800 as the 3rd President. Marshall was appointed Chief Justice by John Adams in the last days of his Presidency, after the election, a fact that rankled Jefferson the rest of his life. The book springs to life for the final 200 pages where Simon, a professor of law at New York Law School, goes into the intricacies, complications, and legalities of the key decisions in Marshall's court room: Marbury v. Madison, the attempted impeachment of Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase (defeated on political grounds), the treason trial of Vice President Aaron Burr, which established on what stringent grounds a citizen can be charged with high treason, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, and Gibbons v. Ogden. These cases established judicial oversight in interstate commerce, conflicts between state and national governments, as well as the precedent of applying for remedy in the courts in conflicts between private citizens and their government.

Absolutely essential for those who want to understand the historical precedent established by one of the very great Supreme Court Chief Justices, John Marshall.

[Diana · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the first book I listened to about Chief Justice John Marshall. Honestly, the second one I read, Without Precedent: Chief Justice John Marshall and His Times by Joel Richard Paul, was far superior.

The conflicting visions of Jefferson and Marshall vis a vis the shape of the United States is fascinating and key to understanding our history and our nation. Simon does a good job laying out a bit of biography of each, and then focusing on the rulings that highlighted their differences.

What I didn't like was that Simon often stated as fact the Jeffersonian view of Marshall, and Adams and the rest of the Federalists for that matter, without explaining the ideological context in which his opinion was formed. With such contentious material, historical, cultural and ideological context and background is really key to understanding both sides of the issues. Simon did not convince me that he was sharing the whole story.

All that being said, learning about John Marshall is absolutely worth it. I read this after reading McCullough's John Adams and Chernow's Hamilton, and am very glad I did. Although lay people (non-lawyers) may not know and appreciate Marshall's importance, it turns out that he had as much to do with shaping the United States as any founding father. But, I would recommend reading Without Precedent to learn about this fascinating, important and inspiring man.

[David Eppenstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had forgotten that I read this book until Amazon reminded me. A very interesting history of two men with opposing views of the direction this country should go in. Their disagreement was deeply felt and the manner of their dispute is something present-day politicians should study and learn from.

[Holly]

Assigned for my con law class. A really interesting look at the tense conflict between Marshall and Jefferson, which you don't see too often.

[Ken Burkhalter · Rating 4 out of 5]

This solid work examines the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall, which was as contentious as one would expect a rivalry between a staunch state's rights proponent and a Federalist could be. It also serves as a lens through which to view the national dilemma as expounded by Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and others. Both Jefferson and Marshall were right of course, and both were wrong; a lesson we would do well to take to heart today. It seems not much has changed since the founding days other than the names of the protagonists. The only real difference between now and then is our ubiquitous and nearly inescapable news cycle, which serves only to divide and embitter, not inform. We are in a mess, something they were acquainted with as well.

“There is so much in the political world to wound honest men, who have honorable feelings, that I am disgusted with it and begin to see things, and indeed human nature, in a much more gloomy medium than I once thought possible.” Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall

What kind of nation, indeed? The question is once again before us. We are at a tipping point and seemingly without the kind of thoughtful reflection and dialog that served so well then. The two sides did not agree on much, and neither do we. But ... they found a way, and that may be their biggest legacy, one we should not forget.

[Marty Coleman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting account of the Supreme Court at the turn of the 19th century. However, it really is better explained as a detailed account of John Marshall's decisions and practices as Chief Justice than it is a bitter fight between Marshall and Jefferson. It's not that that spat isn't in the book, it is. But the book is primarily about Marshall's legal and constitutional ideas of federal vs state power. Jefferson is a secondary character that makes for good drama but Marshall leads the narrative charge throughout.
I learned a lot about some seminal decisions that truly did create our federal system as we know it now. I also learned how arguments about states rights from 220+ years ago are still with us today.
I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the first few decades of our Constitutional Republic.

[Bill Hooten · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a fascinating book! I have really enjoyed learning more about the colonial, revolutionary, and early days of independence; and look forward to learning more. Thomas Jefferson is a fascinating man, but he had political difficulties with a lot of the early leaders of our country -- George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and John Marshall. This book covers the clash between the vice-president, President, and retired president against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It is obvious throughout the book, that the author is on the side of Marshall. But that does not keep it from being very interesting.

[Ed Barton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book covers the battles between Marshall and Jefferson specifically, and the Federalists and Republicans more broadly, from 1798 to 1830. Reflecting the significant impacts that these two men had on the development of the modern United States, the book weaves back and forth between the two positions easily. Readable and enjoyable, the book bogs down at times, but generally flows through the three plus decades touching on significant events and cases. A good read and interesting perspective on the partisan challenges at the beginning of the Republic.

[Marguerite MacLean · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. As I get older, I'm more interested in History, so if you have no interest in history, politics, or law you might not like it. James Simon mixed history with the personal stories to make it both interesting and relevant. He later shows how some of the laws created during Jefferson's and Marshall's time are still being used today. I'm very glad I read this book and will look for other like it.

[Betty Bennett · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a must read. By going to source documents, the author presents all facets of early political decisions that are affecting court decisions that are changing our country's judicial processes today. Knowing the basic issues at the time explains the decisions in ways that helps us evaluate decisions today.
We can then evaluate whether the court's decisions reflect changes in society vs the state of affairs when the original decision was made

[Nyan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting book, not a typical history book. It does not tell the story in chronological order.

It is filled with legal nuisances and its implications in the history of the United States. The United States is indeed a lucky nation to have had great men as Jefferson and Marshall, even if they are on opposing sides.

[Alexander J · Rating 4 out of 5]

Taught me something about constitutional law and one of the most interesting eras of American history. One of those rivalries where the participants genuinely hate each other, which of course makes it more interesting. Its focus on the law and the development of the court made even the Jefferson side valuable to me. I certainly recommend it.

[Anne · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this for law school. Parts of it were very interesting, especially finding out that political turmoil is a standard state of being for the U.S. There were a lot of very dry parts, too, though. I probably won't read it again, but I'd still recommend it to history buffs.

[Jen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really wanted more information about the Marshall court, and less background information about Jefferson and Marshall. Also, did Jefferson like ANYONE? James Madison, maybe?

[Kevin Purnell · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really had to go through pains to finish this book. The book is well researched but it's as dry as a bone.

[Bill Sleeman · Rating 4 out of 5]

What Kind of Nation : Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States by James Simon offers a fresh and informed consideration of these two giants of the founding era and how they struggled with each other directly and through a host of partisan supporters to shape both the Judiciary and the Constitution. In fact, many of the characters we see in Simon’s work are familiar figures but their outright animosity towards one another may not be as familiar. I found particularly interesting the depth of the hate that Thomas Jefferson held for Marshall. I suspect that author James Simon is correct, that their differing views of what the nation should and could be lay so close to the core of who they were as individuals that compromise was never really possible. At best a (VERY) grudging acknowledgement of their differences was all that was achievable. That our current political environment mirrors this 19th century battle in so many ways and the stakes, as they were for Jefferson and Marshall (and for all of us), could not be higher is clear. That Simons hints at this without belaboring it or distracting from his purpose of explaining how we got to where we are today is admirable. The only fault I might offer is that Simon tends to spend too much time on the Burr conspiracy at the expense of the other seminal cases that seemed to be piled up at the end of the book. The absence of any mention of Barron v. Baltimore is an unfortunate shortcoming. Overall this is an excellent history and is useful for both the academic and the general history buff.

[Aaron · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book hit my history-book sweet spot. I am inclined to like most history books with lengthy, but well-told, discussions of legal cases. This book is essentially just that: a sophisticated, yet easy to read, narrative about the cases at the Supreme Court that shaped Constitutional Law regarding the powers of the federal government, the separation of powers among the three branches of government, and the limits of what the states can do viz a viz the federal government, nearly every one of which pitted Marshall against Thomas Jefferson.

I had read most of these cases for my Con Law classes in law school, but this book put the controversies into much greater historical and political context than my case books did. I loved the author's use of opinion pieces from contemporary newspapers to demonstrate how the politically divided public reacted to each of the controversies underlying the cases. I was struck by how politically polarized the nation was at that time and by how close we were to dividing, even decades before the Civil War. I'm not sure I would recommend this book to non-lawyers or to people without a serious interest in the scope and limits of the power of the federal government, but I find those topics very interesting. And I think this book did a pretty good job of explaining technical concepts in a way that non-lawyers would understand.

[Paul Gibson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Today many people tend to imagine America's forefathers as a monolithic, Republican group who agreed upon the clear meanings of the Constitution. This book looks at two main views of what the Constitution might mean and intend. It reveals the reasonable (and unreasonable) disagreement between members of Jefferson's Democratic Republicans. Although Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence) and Madison (the father of our Constitution) often served closely together, they tended to stress different visions of government. The book shows how Jefferson's vision generally lost in court to his cousin’s (John Marshall) Federalist vision. This remained the case even when Republican justices came to be the majority on the Supreme Court. The Federalist constitutional interpretation also turned out to be more realistic, unifying and long-range. While pointing out how much the Jeffersonian vision of State's rights was mitigated and overruled by the courts, we can also imagine how state's rights values may lead to secession and Civil War.
I enjoyed this book even though I didn't prefer the author's style of writing.

[Erik]

Simon's new book is a study of the rivalry between Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall. Joseph Ellis, the author of "Founding Brothers," writes, "No one to the best of my knowledge has chosen to pair Jefferson and Marshall and make the argument between them the focus of book-length treatment. It is the kind of obvious idea that once you see it carried out so capably by Simon, you wonder why no one thought of it before."

Ellis contrasts Jefferson's "core conviction," "that what might be called 'the spirit of '76' had repudiated all energetic expressions of government power" to Marhsall's belief that "the spirit of '87 had trumped the spirit of '76, transforming the loose confederation of states into a coherent nation."

Ellis writes that the "chief virtue" of "What Kind of Nation" is to recover the dialogue between Marhsall and Jefferson "in all its messy grandeur."

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Judicial review of congressional law is presently taken for granted but this hasn't always been so. Before Marbury v. Madison, the judicial was seen as the ugly stepchild whom nobody paid attention to while the other two branches of government fought for supremacy. John Marshall, arguably the greatest jurist in the history of America, managed to outmaneuver that great populist, Thomas Jefferson and thus ensured that the Supreme Court was destined to play a HUGE part in shaping American history. These battles still endure and are felt today in the battles over Roe and the confirmation of judges. This book outlines the struggle for the American soul between two of the greatest politicians of the era and how ultimately Marshall's vision of America has proven to be more enduring.

[Colleen Browne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although there isn't a lot of new information here, it is a good read. The author's affinity for John Marshall is however very clear. A bit of hero worship going on here I am afraid. Never questioning any decision Marshall made, Simon does a disservice to the reader, in my opinion. For example, in his discussion of Marbury v Madison, the author explains the meaning of the decision but never delves into Marshall's justification for it in terms of the constitution.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was off the list of recommended summer reading from ND Law school - I'm probably the only nerd to actually look at the list, let alone read from it. A very compelling read, detailing the intellectual battle between Jefferson and Marshall. Interested to jump more into the implications in the fall

[Derk · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well written history of the Jefferson-Marshall views concerning how the Federal Government should function. Just enough history was provided to set the context. I learned a lot about Marshall that I never knew before, even though I was familiar with many of his court decisions and views. It was also noteworthy that it was all done in some 300 pages.

[Jason Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great details about epic battles between Federalists (John Marshall) and those in favor of States' rights (Jefferson). Marbury v. Madison and what it means to this nation, and how it still is applicable today. Amazing book about amazing thinkers.