Without Precedent: Chief Justice John Marshall and His Times

by Joel Richard Paul

From the author of Unlikely Allies and Indivisible comes the remarkable story of John Marshall who, as chief justice, statesman, and diplomat, played a pivotal role in the founding of the United States. No member of America's Founding Generation had a greater impact on the Constitution and the Supreme Court than John Marshall, and no one did more to preserve the delicate unity of the fledgling United States. From the nation's founding in 1776 and for the next forty years, Marshall was at the center of every political battle. As Chief Justice of the United States—the longest-serving in history—he established the independence of the judiciary and the supremacy of the federal Constitution and courts. As the leading Federalist in Virginia, he rivaled his cousin Thomas Jefferson in influence. As a diplomat and secretary of state, he defended American sovereignty against France and Britain, counseled President John Adams, and supervised the construction of the city of Washington. D.C.This is the astonishing true story of how a rough-cut frontiersman⁠—born in Virginia in 1755 and with little formal education—invented himself as one of the nation's preeminent lawyers and politicians who then reinvented the Constitution to forge a stronger nation. Without Precedent is the engrossing account of the life and times of this exceptional man, who with cunning, imagination, and grace shaped America's future as he held together the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the country itself.

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

512 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 20, 2018

Reviews

[Diane S ☔ · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 Marshall was a self made man, a cousin of Jefferson, but his family had none of the wealth as Jefferson. He was self taught, well read and a man for whom the Union and it's perseverance meant everything. He held different positions, under various early Presidents, and was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for decades. He was integral to the making of the laws of our early country.

A very interesting, well researched book. Reading with a group is always informative, other opinions and place to get clarity for ones own thought. I felt like I got to know Marshall the politician, the man only by inference. His private live, his difficult family life with a wife he loved but who was sickly, was mentioned only occasionally. Would have liked further explanation there. One can tell this author felt Douglas was an outstanding man, he was not very complimentary about Jefferson. Don't know the accuracy of this, but will soon be reading about Jefferson soon, so I expect his character will be revealed.

I learned much which, how the early courts worked, the cases they worked and the manipulation within the court. It's interesting reading how our country developed politically in the early years, and one soon learns that history keeps repeating itself. It seems to be circular, we get so far but then, we seem to follow a familiar path, round and round.

[Breck Baumann · Rating 3 out of 5]

With his previous bestselling history Unlikely Alies covering the alliance between France's Beaumarchais and the Continental cause's Silas Deane, Professor Joel Richard Paul has ably set a high regard and standard for himself as a budding historian. In covering the life of one of the most influential Supreme Court Justices of the Early Republic and Modern era, Paul has managed to use his own judicial expertise in breaking down the finer points of Marshall’s contributions. This is no easy task and he undoubtedly accomplishes it, as he composes a timeline of his subject’s life from his birth in a cabin on the Virginia frontier at the dawn of revolutionary discontent, to his final well-fulfilled demise in 1835 with the shadows of disunion approaching.

That’s not to say that Without Precedent is devoid of flaws, as the negative bias towards Marshall’s second cousin and nemesis Thomas Jefferson takes a front seat throughout the pages. While the end of the book is full of new insight on rarely discussed court cases and positions taken by the Chief Justice, it almost feels like the highlights and true takeaways from the rest of the book involve Marshall’s feuds, slights, and disagreements with Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists over the issue of whom indeed should be steering the Early Republic. Whether discussing the hypocrisy of slavery, or even the announcement of Marshall as envoy to France on the heels of the XYZ Affair, the antipathy towards Jefferson is always unmistakable:

When Jefferson learned that the third commissioner would be his meddlesome cousin Marshall, he surely must have grimaced. Jefferson could not have been happy that President Adams would send any staunch Federalist to France—even though Adams had first asked Jefferson and Madison to go—but Marshall was a particularly offensive choice to Jefferson. Marshall, after all, had championed Jay’s Treaty, supported Washington’s neutrality policy, and opposed Genet. And from Jefferson’s perspective, Marshall did not know his proper place in the world.

Nonetheless, the biography is still full of relevant material and profound research that even the most adamant Jefferson apologist can appreciate and gain from. Marshall’s background is in all cases intriguing and monumental, having grown up without gentility and education, yet fighting alongside the likes of Washington and Aaron Burr at Valley Forge, all the while becoming a self taught lawyer, father, and coping to understand a chronically depressed wife. If the reader can manage to set aside the party politics portion of the book, they will have come away with a thorough understanding of an outstanding figure—one who’s history and accomplishments still stand as a pillar to our present times.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

In my years of reading American history, I have always found biographies of the Founding Fathers of greatest interest to me. Not only were these men full of grit and determination in the face of their British oppressors, but their decisions proved to be some of the most important for the new America, many of which are still held firmly in the political system today. While the Fathers worked to create the central document of rules and limitations—The U.S. Constitution—this was only part of the rules that would govern the country for over two centuries. Joel Richard Paul effectively argues throughout this tome that the Rule of Law was central to a strong republic and no man helped shape that legal tenet more than John Marshall, soldier, politician, diplomat, and long-serving Chief of the United States Supreme Court. Paul’s detailed biography not only helps the reader better understand early America, but also its growth through important legal and political decisions that came from the Court. Not only was Marshall an essential part of early American jurisprudence, but his ability to create conformity amongst the Justices of the Court proved not only that he was persuasive in his positions, but also worked to show the American public that the law can—and should—supersede political divisions. Paul’s thoroughness in presenting much of Marshall’s life serves not only to educate the reader, but help provide a better understanding of America’s early steps toward being a country based on an enshrined set of laws.

Paul spends the first half of the book laying the groundwork for the great legal career of John Marshall. Unlike some more modern men, those who would one day be given the moniker Founding Fathers seemed to have many important positions in colonial America. After laying some of the groundwork of Marshall’s ancestry—where the reader discovers that Marshall and Thomas Jefferson were second cousins—the narrative turns to a brief discussion of the Revolutionary War, where Marshall served in the Continental Army under General Washington. Marshall may not have been a war hero in the most conventional sense, but his understanding of the political goings-on and the legal ramifications of the colonies’ desire to secede would prove valuable in the years to come. Working to help craft some aspects of the constitutional documents, Marshall used some of his legal abilities to ensure that the new Republic would not be left on shaky ground. Proving himself not only to be a sharp legal mind, Marshall was sent to France to help broker deals to solidify American allies while Britain was still seen as the enemy to much of the European countries. While stationed there, Marshall developed some strong social friendships, which Paul posits may have been his way of forgetting the family he left back in America. Marshall’s persuasive ways were not able to cement long-lasting agreements with France, but did help earn him his first formal position in the new American Government. John Adams, who followed Washington to the position of President of the United States offered Marshall the coveted position of Secretary of State. This Cabinet post in its original form held more prestige than it does today, equating to a quasi-presidential role for America on the world stage. With open animosity still present with Britain and a yet to be buttonholed France, Marshall utilised his abilities to strengthen America’s position on the world scene amongst the European superpowers. During this time, America began to show some early signs of strain within its own borders. Divisions between key Founding Fathers saw two political parties emerge: the Federalists and the Republicans. While both labeled as right-of-centre by the author, Federalists held strong traditional views with the country as a whole serving as the base unit of decision making, while Republicans sought ongoing change for Americans and saw the state as the political unit in this new country. Clashes would ensue and vilification of those on the other side of the divide proved to be a regular game. As Adams saw his presidential power waning with the constant attacks by Thomas Jefferson, he chose to offer Marshall one of the most powerful positions possible, that of Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Marshall waffled for a time, as the Court was seen as a weak body on which no man wanted to serve for long. That said, there was the chance to shape the Court and interpret many of the new laws being drafted and implemented by the state and federal governments. Marshall did acquiesce, taking the position in hopes that he could make something of it. How little he knew of what was to come in the decades that followed.

Marshall seemed to come into his own after his appointment to the Supreme Court, even though he was hesitant to accept the role from the outset. Marshall saw the work as difficult and taxing, but also was able to utilise his sharp mind to interpret laws effectively, laying the groundwork for major legal decisions, some of which still hold firm. Paul has aptly named this biography, for many of the decisions that Marshall made (or others on the Court wrote) were without any form of precedent—the idea of a previous court ruling that could be used as the foundation of a judicial decision—thereby allowing (forcing?) the Court to forge into new territory. Paul does delve into a small discussion of the perspective that Marshall had for the Court, an active or interpretative judicial branch, which was substantiated by the comments of others. Some saw Marshall leading the Court to read things into laws or the US Constitution that may not have been present, thereby creating new laws or unintended interpretations. Others argued that Marshall simply followed what was in the law and forced the lawmakers to be bound by what they had passed in their legislative assemblies. Either way, Paul argues effectively that Marshall saw the Constitution has a ‘living tree’ or always evolving, which may help the reader and historians better understand some of his interpretations of legal matters. Through the latter portion of the biography, Paul develops the narrative of Marshall as head of the Court, deciding many important cases that would help shape the young Republic, including: states rights, private land rights, legal entitlement of the Indigenous (read: Indian at the time) population, slavery, and the limits of Executive Power. Numerous cases are listed throughout the narrative, some with great backstories, to help the reader better understand those cases that made their way before the Court and how Marshall sought to interpret them. Interspersed within the cases, Paul develops the historical setting and changes of presidents, some of whom admired Marshall’s work while others sought to vilify him. Marshall remained on the Court for over thirty years and, while holding the judicial and executive branches of government apart, could be seen to inject the odd comment into the goings-on that shaped America. One aspect that historians and biographers can only ponder and not substantiate is the number of unanimous decisions that came from the Court. Marshall may have started with numerous other Federalist justices, but that number waned the longer he remained on the Court. However, the staggering amount of unanimous decisions seemed to continue. As an aside for those who are not aware, discussions of the US Supreme Court justices when they meet in conference to decide cases are neither public nor are they documented for historical review. Therefore, it is all a mystery as to how Marshall might have developed so many strong-minded legal scholars to come together on hundreds of cases. When Marshall could no longer ignore his health concerns, he was forced to leave the Court, having served his country for decades. As with many men of the time, his decline was swift and he left an indelible mark on American history. As Paul effectively argues, no matter one’s political stripe, the country mourned the loss of John Marshall, who served as the compass for the Union leading up to some of the most tumultuous times that would befall the immature Republic.

Joel Richard Paul provides a thorough and educational biography of John Marshall, permitting the reader to better understand this man who shaped early America through his dedication and attention to detail. Paul develops a strong and chronological narrative that permits the reader to see just how varied Marshall’s life came to be and how he put his all into every job he was assigned. As with many other biographies of the Founding Fathers, change was ever-present and the evolution of the country occurred with each decision made. Marshall found himself in the middle of most of it, be it as a soldier, diplomat, cabinet secretary, and Supreme Court Justice. His ideas sought not only to shape the new country, but also proved useful in helping to build a foundation of a country that was seeking to differentiate itself from its past colonial oppressors (the British). Paul offers some great detail in his narrative, but also leaves many aspects of the story open for interpretation or future exploration. It is apparent that a detailed analysis of Marshall’s legal decisions could take up an entire volume, as could fleshing out more of the early years that Marshall lived, before he emerged on the battlefield for the Continental Army. Of interest to some will be Paul’s exploration in the latter portion of the final chapter of the lives of the two cousins, Marshall and Thomas Jefferson. How diametrically opposed the two men could be, yet how quintessential they were to the advancement of the Republic. Paul has done a wonderful job here and leaves the reader wanting more, which tends to happen for those who love the era and enjoy a variety of perspectives. Highly recommended for those with the patience to delve into this biography, which mixes politics, history, and legal matters in equal measure.

Kudos, Mr. Paul, for such a wonderful piece of work. I can only hope that I locate some of your other work soon to better understand other topics that you have taken the time to synthesise.

Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

[David Eppenstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

I do not imagine many biographies of John Marshall bother much with anything beyond his tenure on the Supreme Court since that is where Marshall's mark on our history was made. This book reveals the error in any such effort. While a good deal of attention is paid to the cases Marshall used to establish the independence and necessity of the third branch of government this author devotes nearly half of his book to what got Marshall to the Court and what made him the man that was suited to the task set before him.

To begin with there is repeated mention of the conflicts Marshall had with his cousin Thomas Jefferson and it is clear that this author does not particularly care for our third president, an opinion I share with the author. I consider Jefferson our first sleazy president and this author provides even more reasons for me to hold this opinion. I thought I knew enough from other readings but Prof. Paul supplies even more. He starts with the family basis for the animosity between these two esteemed relatives. It seems that a female forebear of Marshall fell out of favor with her father who disinherited her and the inheritance that would have made Marshall's life comparable in comfort to Jefferson's went to TJ's branch of the family and was enjoyed by TJ. Marshall was born in a log cabin the oldest of 15 children and they were poor as dirt. Nevertheless, Marshall made something of himself and did it the hard way while his cousin TJ never had to work a day in his life or struggle for anything. That Marshall didn't become some sort of twisted bitter and ambitious person is a tribute to the man's character. In fact, at the end of the book the author compares the character and lives of these two men in a fairly objective manner and the result is not surprising.

In addition to revealing more of the important aspects of Marshall's personal development as well as the direction of his career the book also supplies detail about our history that I have not found in any other history that I've read. The book trace Marshall's career through the events of our history in which Marshall was a participant. These events are among the minor events that appear in every U.S. history but never in any depth. Marshall was one of delegates sent to France by Adams to negotiate a settlement with France over the Quasi-War. As a result of that Marshall was directly involved in the infamous XYZ Affair and for the first time we have a history that names who X,Y, and Z actually were and what exactly they did. Much to his dismay this affair made Marshall a national celebrity when all he wanted to do was go home to his nearly invalid wife and return to his law practice. Unfortunately Marshall's sense of duty and his loyalty and devotion to the men that steered his career to advantage made this impossible. He was repeatedly pulled back into the national political scene by Washington and then by Adams with the end result being his appointment as chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Surprisingly, a bit more than half the book is devoted to the cases that insured Marshall's place in our history. What is surprising is that the author is a law professor and this portion of the book is not mind-numbingly boring. To the contrary, the professor lays out these cases in a way that even a layman will appreciate. In each case the author gives the backstory along with some conjecture of what may have been going on behind the scenes even suggesting that Marshall may have suborned perjury in the Marbury case. The author also then identifies the issue of the case and the decision and what the rationale for the decision may have been. He also examines the political implications of the decisions. What the author also credits Marshall for is his ability to build consensus among the justices to achieve an astonishing number of unanimous decisions among justices with dissimilar personalities, backgrounds, and politics. In sum, this is probably one of the best biographies I have ever read and definitely worth reading if you're interested in our history.

[Lorna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Without Precedent: Chief Justice John Marshall and His Times was an engrossing and meticulously researched biography of Chief Justice John Marshall appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President John Adams. The author imparts the historical significance of Chief Justice Marshall's thirty-four years on the Supreme Court and his impact on this new and struggling nation. Joel Richard Paul stressed how Marshall saw the Constitution as a dynamic and fluid body of laws enabling America to go from a small agrarian economy to a modern industrial economy. Paul portrays Marshall's early life in vivid detail contrasting his humble upbringing in the rural Blue Ridge Mountains with fourteen brothers and sisters, while his cousin, Thomas Jefferson, was raised with wealth and privilege at Tuckahoe. However, this gave Marshall an appreciation for the common man that served him well throughout his life. The other experience that shaped Marshall was his service in the Continental Army while in the ranks of Washington and Prussian officer Steuben. Subsequent to attending William and Mary College to study law, he had a daunting reputation for his practice of law and his oratory. Serving in the Virginia House, he became a strong and powerful voice in the shaping of this country. Much of the second half of the book focuses on many of the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Marshall, priding himself on the inordinate number of unanimous decisions that were handed down and still are an integral part of the fabric of this country and our body of law. This was a most unique look at this pivotal and most interesting period in American history.

"Destiny had preordained that Marshall would struggle with Jefferson for the soul of the Union. He accepted President Adams' nomination out of a sense of duty. Marshall was committed to stand vigil over the principle of Federalism, keep the country on the path of moderation, and resist ideology with pragmatism."

"After Jefferson finished speaking, he stood with one hand on a Masonic Bible and the other hand raised to take the oath of office. Standing opposite him to administer the oath of office was a familiar face: John Marshall, the chief justice of the United States and the man who administers the presidential oath of office. History had predetermined their fateful collision. Two cousins who had stood on opposite sides of every public issue for a generation now led two branches of the federal government."

"In less than two decades, the Marshall Court had liberated the market from the constraints of monopolies and the heavy hand of state regulation. It had guaranteed the sanctity of contracts and private property rights. And it had empowered Congress to adopt national regulations that would harmonize state laws. In so doing, the Marshall Court helped create the conditions for free enterprise to flourish in the nineteenth century."

"It is tempting to contrast Marshall's life and legacy with Jefferson's. Until Jefferson's passing, they lived as mirror opposites for half a century in almost every way. No Marshall biography can avoid taking sides in their conflicted relationship. That is not to say that Marshall was always right or that Jefferson was always wrong. Both were exceptional and entirely human. They were flawed and sometimes they erred. Yet both Marshall and Jefferson were indispensable to the founding of the Republic."

[Jean · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a major new biography of John Marshall (1755-1835). Marshall was President John Adams’ Secretary of State. As he was going out of office, Adams appointed John Marshall as the Chief of the Supreme Court. Even though Marshall was the fourth Chief Justice, he was the one that transformed the Court into its current role and one of the key balances of power in the government. Paul covers Marshall’s early life and reveals him as a man. Of course, he also goes into depth discussing his role on the Supreme Court. Marshall was the longest serving Chief Justice. More than any other biography of Marshall, Paul goes into detail about Marshall the man.

The book is well written and meticulously researched. Paul attempts to be unbiased as far as Marshall is concerned but not so for President Thomas Jefferson. The book is easy to read with a flowing narrative. Paul’s writing style makes complex legal cases easy to understand for the layman. I found this to be one of the best biographies on Marshall that I have read to date. If one is interested in the Supreme Court, this is a must-read book.

Joel Richard Paul is a Professor of International Economic Law and Constitutional Law at the University of California Hastings Law School in San Francisco, California.

I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is just over seventeen hours. Fred Sanders does a good job narrating the book. Sanders is a stage and film actor as well as an audiobook narrator.

[Jill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is yet another book that, while focused primarily on John Marshall, compares the legacies Marshall with his political rival, Thomas Jefferson. Both men made essential contributions to the early republic. And like every other historian I have read, in this author’s assessment, Marshall was the better man.

Joel Richard Paul studied at Amherst College, the London School of Economics, Harvard Law School, and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He teaches international economic law, foreign relations, and constitutional law at the University of California Hastings Law School, serving as the Associate Dean at the time of publication. He provides an astute analysis of John Marshall’s greatest cases, and does not hesitate to point out instances when Marshall “was no purer than his contemporaries.” Yet he clearly finds much to admire about John Marshall.

As he notes in his introduction:

"None of the founding generation of American leaders had a greater impact on the American Constitution than John Marshall, and no one did more than Marshall to preserve the delicate unity of the fledgling republic."

This was done by a man whose only formal education was one year of grammar school and six weeks of law school! Yet this self-taught man went on to exhibit not only a wide-ranging erudition but a sense of honesty and decency that won over even those who began as his opponents. (The exception of course was the intractable Jefferson, who saw Marshall as standing in the path of Jefferson’s control of all branches of government.) Marshall’s special forte was the art of compromise, which he employed both as a diplomat in France, and on the court which he led for thirty-four years, longer than any other chief justice. More critically, he single-handedly established the court’s importance and supremacy in American life.

Marshall was born on September 24, 1755 in Germantown, Virginia, the eldest of fifteen children. His mother was a first cousin of Thomas Jefferson’s mother but the families were not close. Because of a scandal involving Marshall’s maternal grandmother, the Marshall side of the family was disinherited, and Jefferson’s family got most of the wealth. As Paul observes:

"As a result, Thomas Jefferson grew up at Tuckahoe with five hundred slaves. There he enjoyed enormous privilege and wealth. His cousin John Marshall and his fourteen siblings grew up on the frontier working the stony soil on their father’s modest farm."

Paul avers that Marshall grew up without resentment; rather, he moved fluidly between classes and had the confidence to believe he could elevate his station. Unlike Jefferson, who grew up with education, advantages, and was groomed for leadership, Marshall had to rely on determination and self-invention. His upbringing also provided him with more compassion than Jefferson, and a more generous and humane nature. Paul opined:

"Though Marshall belonged to the party of elites, he practiced republicanism in his everyday life. By contrast, Jefferson preached democracy but lived more like the European aristocrats he despised.(p. 235)”

Jefferson, in Marshall's view, as Paul contends, “lacked genuine empathy and embodied precisely the kind of elitism that he attacked in theory. He could never be trusted to act in the interests of the nation.”

When President John Adams nominated Marshall to be Chief Justice right before he ceded the presidency to Thomas Jefferson, “the Supreme Court was regarded as nothing more than a constitutional afterthought.”

Jefferson and the Republican Congress wanted to emasculate the judiciary, and took numerous steps (only some of which were successful) to do so. But by the time Marshall’s tenure ended in 1835, he had “elevated the dignity of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the Constitution’s meaning.”

Importantly, Marshall was able to win over the other justices on the court, even those appointed by Jefferson specifically to oppose Marshall. Paul posits that Marshall’s collegiality as well as “sheer personality and intellect” won over “even the most resolute colleague.”

How he did this - and sometimes he acted less than exemplary in his efforts to outwit the attacks on judicial independence and rule of law by Thomas Jefferson and later Andrew Jackson - is the subject of Paul’s book. Paul tells the story mostly through an explication of the cases that came before the court, because the fact was that many of them represented competing visions of power between Jefferson and Marshall.

I was especially surprised to learn about Marshall’s sneaky manipulation in seminal cases like Marbury vs. Madison, but I believe, as Marshall seems to have done, that the end justified the means. In any event, Marshall was no less sneaky and manipulative than Jefferson, but Marshall, in my view, was more often on “the side of the angels.”

Paul informs us that prior to Marshall’s tenure, each justice issued his own individual opinion seriatim. Marshall thought that the Court’s authority would be more persuasive and the law more clarified if he could forge a single decision on behalf of the entire Court. Thus, during his thirty-four years as chief justice, Marshall personally wrote 547 opinions. Of these, 511 were unanimous.

It is important to note the irony that Marshall, a “founding father,” rejected a strict construction of the Constitution and insisted on interpreting it as a living document that responded to the needs and demands of a growing nation.

Marshall made a number of courageous decisions that inspired a great deal of enmity in his detractors, such as clearing Aaron Burr of treason charges in 1807. This charges were pushed forward by President Jefferson for the principal reason that Burr was a powerful political enemy. But the penalty for treason was death, and there was a total lack of evidence against Burr.

While Paul is generally willing to expose Marshall’s warts, he gives him a pass when it comes to slavery. Paul writes:

"Marshall was not free of racial prejudice, and he did enjoy the comforts that his household slaves provided to him. Marshall’s attitude toward African Americans was paternalistic. He viewed his slaves as family members who needed his guidance and support. . . . It appears that Marshall treated his slaves humanely, and on at least one occasion, he paid for a doctor to care for a slave woman who was ill.”

In his conclusion he repeats the assertion that Marshall had a “generous and humane relationship with his slaves" (p. 437).

[This seems to me to be a quite specious argument. Can you be “humane” toward someone you hold in ownership, house in your basement, trade like baseball cards at a cattle market, and buy and sell at your whim? Okay so maybe you don't use a whip and don't use rape - should that be touted as laudatory? I would accept "less horrible" perhaps, but not "humane."]

Paul Finkelman, writing in Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court (Harvard, 2018) contends that biographers are reluctant to tarnish the picture of “our greatest chief justice.” But Marshall’s relationship with slavery was an important influence on his jurisprudence and therefore deserves closer scrutiny.

Marshall accumulated more than 150 slaves in his lifetime, while also giving around seventy slaves to two of his sons. When he died, Marshall did not arrange to free any of his slaves, unlike some other prominent Virginians in his time, including George Washington. No evidence remains as to how he actually treated his slaves.

But we can learn something from his jurisprudence, Finkelman argues. It was "hostile to free blacks and surprisingly lenient to people who violated the federal laws banning the African slave trade.” (Finkelman at 34) For Marshall serving on the court, Finkelman argues, “slaves were another form of property subject to litigation….”

Finkelman cites John Marshall in his “Memorial: To the General Assembly of Virginia,” December 13, 1831, available in Papers of Marshall, 12:127 contending that free blacks in Virginia were worthless, ignorant, and lazy, and that they were “pests” that should be removed from the state.” (Finkelman at 51)

It is truly tragic that Marshall felt this way, for he might have made a difference. As Marshall said in his opinion exonerating Burr, and acknowledging the unpopularity of the ruling:

"That this court dares not usurp power is most true. That this court dares not shrink from its duty is not less true. No man is desirous of placing himself in a disagreeable situation. No man is desirous of becoming the peculiar subject of calumny. . . . But if he have no choice in the case, if there be no alternative presented to him but a dereliction of duty or the opprobrium of those who are denominated the world, he merits the contempt as well as the indignation of his country who can hesitate which to embrace. That gentlemen, in a case the most interesting, in the zeal with which they advocate particular opinions, and under the conviction in some measure produced by that zeal, should, on each side, press their arguments too far, should be impatient at any deliberation in the court, and should suspect or fear the operation of motives to which alone they can ascribe that deliberation, is, perhaps, a frailty incident to human nature; but if any conduct on the part of the court could warrant a sentiment that it would deviate to the one side or the other from the line prescribed by duty and by law, that conduct would be viewed by the judges themselves with an eye of extreme severity, and would long be recollected with deep and serious regret.”

Evaluation: I love reading histories of John Marshall - how can anyone with an interest in the law and in this country not find fascinating the court cases that shaped all subsequent jurisprudence as well as the relationship among the three branches of government? The fact that relationship is now imperiled is all the more reason to study how and why these struggles were worked out in the past, and to what effect.

[Aaron Million · Rating 2 out of 5]

When thinking of the Founding Fathers, the name of John Marshall does not come immediately to mind. While less famous than his contemporaries such as John Adams, and fellow Virginians George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe, Marshall's thirty-four year tenure as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during the first third of the 18th century indicates his importance. Prior to that, however, Marshall served in various important roles, beginning with fighting under Washington in the Revolutionary War. Marshall also served in Congress, and was quite active in Virginia politics.

Similar to a more famous American of that time, Alexander Hamilton, Marshall was an ardent Federalist, wanting a strong centralized government. This frequently put him at odds with most of his Virginia contemporaries, who generally favored state's rights over any national government. Prior to Adams nominating him almost at the last minute to become Chief Justice shortly before Jefferson took the reigns of the presidency, Adams had appointed him as one of the Ministers to France in the late 1790s in an effort to avoid war with that country. In between those two important jobs, Marshall served as Secretary of State for approximately a year.

Joel Richard Paul writes about all of this, along with interspersing bits of Marshall's personal life along the way. Marshall married his wife Polly, and she bore him several children, some of whom died quite young. She also became a semi-invalid early on in their marriage, prone to bouts of depression and paranoia, and easily disturbed by the most mundane of noises such as footsteps. She rarely traveled with Marshall, and usually only left the house to go to church. Marshall's frequent absences from her lead Paul to speculate - too much so in my opinion - that Marshall may have had an affair while he was in Paris and later on in Washington D.C. He does not really provide much proof though, content to read between the lines of some of Marshall's letters, especially to a Madame Villette.

But while Marshall led an eventful and momentous life, Paul's effort here leaves much to be desired. The book is littered with silly factual errors that Paul could have and should have not made. For instance, on page 185 he writes about the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. He claims that Jefferson wrote both of them and "...forwarded them to Madison, who pushed them through the Virginia legislature." This is not correct. Madison significantly revised the Virginia resolutions, and toned down Jefferson's endorsement of nullification. As a result, the Kentucky Resolutions are much more strident than the Virginia ones are.

Another mistake comes on page 331, when Paul calls Monroe's first inauguration Marshall's 4th that he participated in as Chief Justice. Wrong. Marshall swore Jefferson in for both of his terms, and did the same with Madison. So Monroe's 1817 swearing-in was Marshall's 5th inauguration. Paul should know this, and I am sure that he does. But neither he nor his editor seemed to catch this error. One final mistake that I will point out is on page 281 when Paul is writing about the impeachment trial of Justice Samuel Chase. The impeachment manager for the House was John Randolph from Virginia. But Paul refers to Randolph's "fellow Senators". Randolph was not a Senator; he was conducting the trial in the Senate as stipulated in the Constitution.

Paul's treatment of Marshall is quite one-sided. Very seldom are we exposed to some criticism of Marshall's actions. It is almost always Marshall being on the supposedly good side of an issue. Marshall's motives are usually not questioned, while those of almost everyone else - especially Jefferson - are. Like on page 208, where Paul claims that "Marshall's steady hand avoided a costly and unnecessary war that might have depleted the nation." Marshall absolutely did help the country avert war. But he did not do it alone. Adams steadfastly pursued a policy of peace, despite some clumsy rhetoric at times. Other prominent figures also attempted to cool the brakes of war fever. Marshall absolutely deserves some credit for helping to achieve that, but he did not single-handedly accomplish it.

Paul makes a curious comment on page 224, when Adams nominates Marshall for the Supreme Court. He says that Marshall was not particularly keen on taking the role because, among other things, "...there were higher offices to seek." At that moment, he was Secretary of State. The only higher office would have been that of President. Was Marshall ever seriously considering that? Did anyone else promote him for that office? Paul says nothing further on this account, probably because the answer to both questions is no. So why make the comment to begin with?

Perhaps the biggest issue I have with Paul is that the book often reads more like an anti-Jefferson diatribe than it does as a biography of Marshall. Paul takes every opportunity to criticize Jefferson and show him as a duplicitous, scheming figure who held a personal vendetta against Marshall (they were cousins but on totally opposite spectrums of politics, and their personalities also clashed). He writes on page 80 that "Jefferson was blinded by the cataracts of his ideology..." and that he was a hypocrite. I actually don't disagree with Paul's criticism of Jefferson. Personally, I am not a fan - at all - of Jefferson. In addition to being a complete hypocrite on slavery (which by the way Marshall was somewhat guilty of being as well), he was a backstabber and an unrealistic dreamer. The problem I have with Paul's approach is that this book is supposed to be about Marshall, not about tearing Jefferson down at his expense. In their long, antagonistic relationship, I cannot think that things were always only Jefferson's fault. Paul makes a weak attempt at the very end of the book to say a few positive things about Jefferson, but by that point it is a case of too little, too late.

Paul does a decent job of reviewing the plethora of major decisions that Marshall issued while he was Chief Justice, and he does provide an appropriate level of context for most of these decisions. He also is good in the earlier part of the book in providing details about the situation that Marshall found himself in while serving in France. Unfortunately, he completely drops the ball concerning Marshall serving as a delegate to the Virginia Constitutional Convention in 1829. Paul notes this on page 410, but nothing more! Not even a sentence about what Marshall did there, what he said or did not say, or how the convention went for him. Nothing. Just a few sentences that he was chosen as a delegate and reluctantly agreed to serve.

Ultimately I finished this book feeling like I only got part of Marshall's story. Some parts are filled in fairly well, especially the world in which Marshall lived. But other parts, such as an objective appraisal of him, are largely missing. Very little is mentioned about Marshall owning slaves. And even when Paul does bring the subject up, it is as much to bash Jefferson (which is deserved) as it is to comment on Marshall's role as a slaveowner. When I finish a biography of someone, and I still want to know more about that person, either the person led an incredibly interesting and eventful life and/or the author failed to provide a nuanced, complete rendering of that person's life. In this case, it is both.

Grade: D

[Mrs C · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a page turner. I love history but unfortunately most books are told like a textbook-matter-of-fact and dry. This one is a marvelously written account with a flowing narrative of Marshall’s ascent as a frontiersman to one of the longest-serving Chief Justice. This is a book I can give away to history buffs-there’s still plenty to figure out about this great man.
I would definitely purchase the hardcover when it comes out.

Advance print copy provided by the publisher.

[Porter Broyles · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wrote the following book review for John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court by Richard Brookhiser, but since I didn't write a reivew for this book, I am copying it here as that reivew is more or less a comparison and contrast between the two books.

*****************************

This is a good introduction to some of the major Supreme Court cases that were tried under John Marshall, but is not nearly as good as Without Precedent: Chief Justice John Marshall and His Times by Joel Richard Paul.

Brookhiser's book is not really a biography of Marshall. After a brief introduction it focuses more on the court cases than on Marshall. To this end it comes up short.

Paul's book does a much better job at explaining the back story behind the cases, how Marshall changed the court. For example, prior to Marshall each justice tended to write their own opinion on the case. This often created confusion because even if the majority ruled the same way, their rationale might be different (sometime conflicting). Marshall realized that a single opinion would strengthen the court and convinced the other Judges to go along with that.

Marshall also realized that sometime he had to give more in the short term to gain more in the long term. While Brookhiser mentions this and comments about how Marshall succeeded by giving both sides a little of what they wanted, he doesn't really delve into the genius that was Marshall.

For example, in Cherokee Nation v Georgia, Marshall wrote the majority opinion. On the surface of the opinion the modern reader might be shocked. It does to Native Americans what Dred Scott did to blacks. The ruling goes against modern sensabilities---and it went against other principals that Marshall had. Brookhiser notes that shortly after writing his opinion Joseph Story wrote an a dissenting opinion which obliterated Marshall's opinion. Brookhiser also notes that Marshall concluded the opinion by declaring that it might be interesting to see the case revisted.

But Brookhiser does not go into the particulates of the story like Paul. Marshall wanted to rule in favor of the Cherokee's, but realized that the majority of the court opposed it. He couldn't get the 4 votes needed, so he changed his vote. By changing his vote, he was now on the majority side and could write the Court's majority opinion. Had he left his vote in opposition, 4-3, then William Johnson would have written the opinion.

Marshall didn't want that. He knew that Johnson would write a well crafted opinion that would set future precedent. Marshall wanted a weak opinion that could be challenged in the future. Which is what he produced---arguably the worse opinion he wrote as Chief Justice. Shortly after finishing it, one of his best friends on the court, Joseph Story obliterated it. Marshall made sure that Story's dissent got as much, if not more, coverage than his own official opinion!

But you don't get that from Brookhiser, you get that from Paul. Many of the other court cases have details that are almost that interesting that are missing from Brookhiser.

Other key details are missing. I'm thinking particularly about details of his rivalry with Jefferson and the interplay with one of his slaves (and friend). [EDITED for the Paul review, Marshall treated his slave with respect and paid him well. Presented side by side, the slave was well dressed and presentable, Marshall was a wreck.)

If I wasn't familiar with Paul's book I probably would have given this book 4 stars. Brookhiser does a good job---the book is well written and interesting.

[Krishan · Rating 2 out of 5]

“It is tempting to contrast Marshall’s life and legacy with Jefferson’s...No Marshall biography can avoid taking sides in their conflicted relationship.” (P. 436).

I humbly beg to differ.

If you seek an unbiased account of the life and works of Justice Marshall, then stay away from this book. This narrative can be more accurately described as a criticism of Jefferson than a summary of Marshall’s works.

To put it bluntly, this book drips with bias and leaves the reader with a bad taste in their mouth.

This book deserves less than two stars, however the author certainly has taken the time to research all the material he chooses to put a slant on. To give credit where credit is due, two stars for the depth of research and zero for everything else.

[Donald Powell · Rating 5 out of 5]

As good a history book as I have read. Marshall is a true founding father and a man of great character for his time. This was a detailed lesson in the politics during the revolution and for over forty years after. The book explains details about Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and many others in a depth and from a perspective rarely exposed in other histories. Marshall is revealed for his attempts to be intellectually honest and his willingness to be clever and thoughtful in his navigation of the issues and personalities of his time. He was a slave owner and a racist though not as bad as most of the other leaders of the time. He played a major role in preserving the country and making it stronger, more able to be a functional nation.
I was in awe of him through most of the book and yet saddened when he failed to have the courage to stand up against some of the most horrendous events of our time. The author makes fascinating allusions to our current political climate and is persuasive with analogies to how Marshall was a national parent, making hard choices for a higher good with a greater vision of the future. I differ with the author's final comment arguing Marshall was not intellectually dishonest. He was but he was human and I agree he had the integrity to be guided by compromise for the bigger picture.
Being a lawyer and having seen the damage done by intellectually dishonest appellate courts I cannot condone this historian's view of the short term damage being worth the long term picture. Federal judges especially, with their lifetime appointments, need to guide us and the long term good is better served by the pain and possible discord of an unpopular opinion that is morally and intellectually consistent. All of that being said I applaud the author for his integrity of telling the whole story, good and bad, and that is good history. I hold Marshall in the highest esteem because he was human and he did live in his time. Compared to anyone in that realm of national politics Marshall stands above them in the greatest honor

[John Becker · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a well written and readable biography about the fourth Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court with the longest tenure of 34 years on the bench. The book is titled, Without Precedent, because Marshall practically set much of the nascent court's precedents himself. Don't need to be a lawyer to enjoy this history.

Marshall rose from a Virginia log cabin birth, the oldest of 15 children to a member of the Founding Generation serving in the Continental Army with Washington at Valley Forge. He later served as a diplomat and secretary of state. Was appointed as Chief Justice by the outgoing President John Adams. He served during the pivotal points in the nascent Republic. As a leading Federalist he established the independence of the Judiciary branch of government. Marshall was an honorable man, a pragmatist and a consensus builder among the other justices creating many unanimous decisions.

Much of this biography describes the relationships and political conflicts with his Virginia Cousin, Thomas Jefferson and the Jeffersonian Republicans. For me this was a most interesting part of the book. Never thought much of Jefferson because of his deceitful political tactics and double dealings. But this author skewers Jefferson. I think Marshall saved the early Republic by resisting the Jeffersonian Republicans.

On the subject of the Supreme Court, I also recommend reading about the first Chief Justice, "John Jay: Founding Father", By Walter Stahr.

[Lin F · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about this book. The discussion of the court cases and the early history of the judicial system in our country, along with John Marshall's influence as Chief Justice, was very interesting. But the overtly biased approach that the author used for Marshall, and against Jefferson, was just too much. The last two pages of the book summed up John Marshall's accomplishments in a very balanced way, but the previous 400+ pages weren't balanced at all.

[Franklin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Joel Richard Paul's "Without Precedent" accomplishes what i hoped, I learned much about the life and impact of John Marshall on the early Republic. This is a very well written account of Marshall and quite clearly spells out Marshall's contribution to American History, especially to the Supreme Court. In fact, Marshall is the primary reason the Supreme Court, and for that matter, the Federal Court system became an effective third branch of our government.
Marshall, a Federalist, was appointed to the Court as Chief Justice by John Adams in order to help check the growing power of the then Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson. Until Marshall came to the Court, it had been a spot for those to park themselves until a better office became available, such as a member of the Cabinet, or a governor of a state, etc. Marshall stabilized it through his personality and intelligence. Even though he was a Federalist, Marshall wanted to make the Court a non partisan branch. He worked well with, not only Federalist, but also those appointed by Jefferson and Madison. In fact, he was such a good leader on the Court, many of the early decisions handed down were unanimous decisions.

The only reason, I don't give this 5 stars, is Paul seems to fall in the trap at times that many biographers do, they tend to demonize their subject's political opponents. In this case, it's Thomas Jefferson who often comes off as a conniving jerk. Jefferson should be held accountable like any other important political figure, and he has his failings. But, even so, I would like to see a little more balance.

But overall, I would definitely recommend this biography. I would like to read Jean Edward Smith's bio on Marshall and read his take. But that will be reserved for another time. Until then, it's time to move on

[Michael G · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-told story of a truly great and admirable man, the kind of person you wish you had known. This book was an eye-opener in the way that Ron Chernow’s “Hamilton” was in that, prior to reading it, I had no idea how important and necessary long-serving Chief Justice John Marshall was to our nation’s founding and Constitution. Just as with Hamilton, the US would likely not have endured without Marshall. Just as with Hamilton, he had to battle Thomas Jefferson every step of the way. It’s a miracle we’re still here, thanks to Marshall, Hamilton and Washington.

[Robert Melnyk · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting, well written, and informative book about the life of John Marshall. Most people probably know about Marshall's tenure on the Supreme Court, but I was not aware that he also served with distinction during the American Revolution, was a member of Congress, and served as Secretary of State under John Adams. The book does a good job of describing Marshall in all of these aspects of his life, and his relationships with other founding fathers, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. One problem I had with the book is that it seemed to be very biased in favor of Marshall and against Jefferson (who was also Marshall's distant cousin). The book made it seem that Marshall could do no wrong and Jefferson was basically portrayed as cowardly, unprincipled, and vindictive. I have read a lot about Jefferson, and this was my first book about Marshall. Somehow, I think the truth probably lies somewhere in between what Joel Richard Paul describes. But all in all, the book was interesting and well worth the read.

[Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pros: accessibly written and interesting. Cons: a number of minor factual errors (particularly about the French revolution), openly biased in favor of John Marshall and against Thomas Jefferson, who is demonized as both rigidly ideological and entirely without principles.

[Urey Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just a wonderful read - compelling, interesting and revealing. John Marshall is one of those historical figures that we all know of, but know little about. Paul rectifies that, and in the process includes an engrossing depiction of life in post-Revolutionary America. It is an engrossing immersion into the world of our founding fathers. His description of the new Washington city and the early White House (then called the Executive Mansion) is excellent. The personalities and the political infighting and partisan combat of early American government reminds us that there is really nothing new in politics... it was more of a blood sport then than even now. Paul distributes details about Marshall and his associates and his opponents around and within his accounts of major cases decided by Marshall's Supreme court. His narratives of the events, details and inside information flesh out the case histories that he lays out and give even greater insight into the times in which Marshall acted, and the influences and issues that affected him.

For example, I have always known about Marbury v. Madison and the precedent it set establishing judicial review. That's basic American History 101. But I never knew what disagreements led to the case, what the principles did, or how the actual trial and subsequent appeal developed and the interactions of the people involved, the hidden agendas and the motives and the willful distortions if not perjuries that occurred. Paul gives the same thorough, revealing and perceptive treatment to the other seminal, precedent establishing cases that Marshall decided. It's a remarkable, and remarkably enjoyable, history of a critical time in America's evolution, a time when the survival of the new republic was literally at stake.

Jefferson is a major player in much of Paul's narrative - and not a sympathetic one. He and Marshall (they were cousins) were on opposite sides of most of the policies, issues and political conflicts that roiled the era following the Revolution. The great political and philosophical questions of the day were represented by these two men and their life-long irreconcilable bitter differences. It is an interesting contrast, one that lasted undiminished throughout their respective lives and that ultimately set the course and nature of American government and political culture for generations to come.

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written biography of John Marshall’s rise from penniless Revolutionary War Volunteer through his career as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court with focus on many of the important decisions he authored for the Court.

An amazing intellect with a strong desire to preserve the United States by crafting decisions that promoted a balanced three branch federal government. Marshall through the force and warmth of his personality crafted unanimous decisions designed to keep the individual states from creating laws that promoted State’s rights. The issue of slavery lurked behind these decisions with the agrarian Southern States in favor of State’s rights and the industrial Northern States favoring a strong central government.

Marshall life was lived with a strong sense of duty to both his frail wife and his fledgling country. Throughout the book runs the sense of rivalry and idealogical opposition between Marshall and his wealthy and intelligent cousin Thomas Jefferson. Until I read this book, I had no idea of the political divisiveness that was rife between the opposing points of view of our Constitution in the early years of nationhood. Reading about this period, gives me hope that we may find a way through the issues that divide us today.

[Diana · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I think about Founding Fathers, I usually only think about the Presidents plus Benjamin Franklin. It turns out John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from John Adams through Andrew Jackson (34 years--the record for Chief Justices) is as important as any of them in the forming of our nation.

This is the second book I have listened to about Marshall, and it far outshines the other (What Kind of Nation by James F Simon). First of all, it covers much more of Marshall's biography, providing more personal context for his political life. Second, Paul couches his statement and especially his judgments in historical fact and context, sharing the common narratives, both pro and con, about each topic he discusses. Third, Paul goes as far back as necessary to fully contextualize each important case or event he discusses so that the listener can understand the how we got here, what it means and where it leads us of each of the momentous decisions Marshall wrote. So I learned as much, well, more actually, about law as I did about Marshall himself.

Definitely worth listening to. Fascinating history that has implications up through today.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-written, well-argued and a remarkably clear guide to Marshall's thought, opinions and well-deserved reputation as one of America's premier jurists. With the current US Supreme Court as such a low ebb, it's easy to overstate Marshall's stature and genius. But not by much. Paul acknowledges that Marshall, while almost always rational, pragmatic and persuasive, did not necessarily always hew to the text of the Constitution, international law or key precedents. And he likely suborned perjury in the Marbury v. Madison case. Still, in his support for judicial review, a strong federal government and Indian soverignty, to name just 3 critical areas, surely Marshall earned his status as one of the greatest of the Founding Fathers, certainly higher than Jefferson, with whom Marshall clashed for most of his life (and with whom Paul succintly contrasts Marshall in the closing pages here).

Here's one of the inevitable echoes of history: Writing of Marshall's attitude about the odd appeal Napoleon had for the French citizenry, Paul observes: "But, as sometimes happens in times of uncertainty, people are drawn to authoritarian outsiders whose only moral compass is narcissim."

[Charles · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Little Known First Interpreter of America’s Constitution and Shaper of Nationhood

John Marshall is arguably the least-known member of the generation that shaped America during its founding and early years. Author Joel Richard Paul has written an enlightening biography that spans Marshall’s service in the American Revolution, his role as a diplomat in Paris and as Secretary of State, and his 34 year tenure and remarkable influence as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As Paul observes, Marshall was present and often influenced every important event from 1775 to 1835.

In contrast to the other wealthy Virginians among the founding fathers — Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe —Marshall’s origins were modest, growing up in the hardscrabble western frontier of Virginia. Astonishingly, his formal education consisted of one year of grammar school and six weeks of law school.

But Marshall, largely self-taught, obviously had a first-class brain. And he had an extraordinary talent for making people like him, for forging friendships with those on the other side of an issue, and in converting them to his point of view. During his tenure as Chief Justice, he presided over 1,100 decisions, more than half of which he wrote himself. Of the decisions Marshall wrote, all but 35 were unanimous, in stark contrast to the dissents of the polarized Court today.

The exception to this ability to compromise and convert was Marshall’s relationship with Thomas Jefferson, who represented a view of government that was the antithesis of Marshall’s.

Author Paul leaves no doubt where he stands in assessing the merits of Marshall’s philosophy vs. that of Jefferson. Jefferson and his Republicans were great believers in the French Revolution, even after it became very violent. Jefferson didn’t speak out when the Marquis de Lafayette was arrested and narrowly escaped execution, believing such collateral damage was the acceptable cost of revolution.

Marshall, as an envoy to France, had observed the French Revolution first hand. He and his fellow Federalists felt that Jefferson was a radical extremist who would shake the very fundamentals on which the country was founded and divide the nation at a time when its survival was threatened by the two world powers, England and France.

The portrait that Paul paints of Marshall is one of great intelligence and foresight, but also as an individual who could engage in Machiavellian maneuvering as he positioned which cases the Court would take and how he could shape arguments to reach the decisions he desired.

All these talents were on display in the case for which Marshall is best known, Marbury vs. Madison. Marshall had the case filed in the wrong court to avoid conflict with Jefferson and, says the author, “apparently perjured himself” regarding the facts of the case. He then “sat in judgement of a case in which he was the principal witness”. It was the first time a federal court had struck down a federal law as unconstitutional. More important, argues Paul, the decision established the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch with the Executive and Legislative branches. And, perhaps most important, it established that the Court could sit in judgment on actions of the Executive branch and rule that an action was illegal.

Paul describes a number of other Court rulings under Marshall that created an enduring precedent for the way our Constitution is interpreted today. One of these is the trial of Aaron Burr. Burr’s criticism of Jefferson, so Jefferson argued, constituted constructive treason, a British common law doctrine applying to anyone who criticizes the sovereign. Jefferson wanted Burr hung. The Marshall Court distinguished between an overt act of treason and verbal criticism. In so doing, Marshall safeguarded the doctrine of freedom of speech.

In our own times, when the pendulum of judicial interpretation has swung to Originalism in Constitutional interpretation (as propounded by late Justice Antonin Scalia), one is struck by Marshall’s pragmatism. The young country was already changing in a way that could not have been fully foreseen even a few years earlier by the drafters of the Constitution. As a Federalist, Marshall had a good grasp of the future, and was willing to bend the interpretation of the Constitution in a way that acknowledged the growing commercial and international interests of the young country. He would have found the dogmatic position of Scalia and other “Originalists” oddly inflexible. And, given his ability to forge consensus on the Court, there is a possibility that his talents, were he sitting today, could bring the majority on today’s Court around to his point of view.

Certainly author Paul has his own point of view in this biography of Marshall. Not all readers will agree with his interpretation in praise of Marshall’s Federalists and in condemnation of Jeffersonian Republicans, but the narrative can inspire thoughtful debate. And without doubt, nearly all readers will gain an appreciation of the influence of John Marshall on our nation’s history and on the stature of the judiciary as a check and balance on the legislative and executive branches.

[Lucy · Rating 4 out of 5]

marshall really was the goat 💯💯💯

[Bruce · Rating 3 out of 5]

Joel Richard Paul has written an interesting account of the life of our fourth Chief Justice and the man
who made the federal judiciary the power that it is. If John Marshall had not been in that position
from 1801 to 1835 who knows what the federal courts would be like and what power they might have.
Certainly less if his critics had their way.

It's a readable book that even non-legal scholars might understand as the cases of the Marshall
court like Marbury vs. Madison, Fletcher vs. Peck, Gibbons vs. Ogden are laid out so the lay man can
understand the issues. Marshall's considerable career as trial attorney in Virginia as well as his
contributions as a Representative in Congress and second Secretary of State in the John Adams administration are also discussed throughly.

Unfortunately the book is written from the point of view that with Marshall and his bitter rival
Thomas Jefferson who was a distant cousin it comes off as a personal spat. It got good and personal at times and it's written like Marshall good, Jefferson bad. Both had their strengths and
weaknesses and both made contributions that have lasted to our American history and jurisprudence.

The seminal event of Marshall's life was his Revolutionary war service. Marshall was at Valley
Forge and he formed a lasting attachment to his commander in chief George Washington. He was
the first Washington biographer, one of the few in their state of Virginia to stick with Washington
and the Federalists as most of the state went with Jefferson and his Democrat-Republicans.

Marshall never forget while he was at Valley Forge and fought in many of the battles Jefferson lived
pretty good in Philadelphia while writing the Declaration of Independence and as Governor of Virginia fled in the nick of time from Monticello from British redcoats. I think some have been
pretty rough on Tom, it wasn't his finest hour. But would they have wanted him to be captured
and almost certainly hung if he had been? Still a lot of his critics took that as a good excuse for
snickering.

Although the narrative is a bit too personal this is still a fine account of the life of John Marshall.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them... well, I have others.” - Groucho Marx

This 2018 biography of John Marshall by UC Hastings law professor John Richard Paul is a decent work marred by some amateurish speculation and over the top attempts to place Marshall on the "right" side of the slavery question.

The strengths of this book are in the "humanizing" of Marshall. As the longest serving Chief Justice and author of so many seminal opinions, it's easy to overlook that Marshall was also a man - a jocular, intelligent, and generally unassuming one. Paul does a wonderful job of bringing Marshall down to earth there. That's also a problem, because in doing so, Paul also reveals that many of Marshall's most important judicial opinions were less the product of consistent or even "ethical" reasoning/ decision-making, but rather in advance of a largely predetermined result. (Paul's theory that Marshall suborned perjury to get facts he needed on the record in Marbury v Madison is one example).

Marshall was the last real redoubt for Federalists and his belief in a strong central government (at the expense of state power) and desire to elevate the Court to co-equal status resulted in his crafting opinions that moved the ball closer to that goal. For a government that was so new and everybody was kind of making up the rules and setting precedent with every early step, that's forgivable as even a mild consensus on Constitutional powers hadn't formed-- but Paul goes too far in holding out Marshall's approach as something to emulate *today* as such an approach, unmoored as it is from nearly 250 years of precedent is both cynical and unethical (something judges should not be).

Given the newness of it all, it's hard to say whose interpretation regarding the Court's role was "right" - we know who won, and it sure wasn't Jefferson. Tommy Jeff doesn't come out well in this work partly due to stylistic choices by Paul but also largely because Jefferson is a risible character. The constant battling between these second cousins is an enjoyable element and Paul goes to great lengths to highlight the philosophical contrasts between the two.

Less enjoyable or credible is Paul's attempts to place Marshall on the "right" side of history with respect to slavery. Paul spends far too much ink on Marshall's occasional representation of slaves in legal proceedings, his membership in Colonization societies, or his more "humane" treatment of his own slaves in an attempt to shield him from more modern historical criticism. It's overwrought and unnecessary. Marshall owned over 200 slaves during his long life and never manumitted a one. Paul's glossing over/ ignoring this inconvenient fact damages the book's credibility when it's coupled with so many attempts at "rehabilitating" Marshall on the slavery question.

Another issue with the book is that Paul engages in frequent outright speculation as to what Marshall was thinking or feeling. This is mostly limited to Marshall's pre-Court life where source documents are harder to come by. For example, Paul comments that watching the city of Norfolk burned by British in 1776 convinced Marshall of the need for a strong central government to prevent such events. Did it though? It may have but we don't have evidence. Just as easily, it could have shown the dangers of a standing army (the Jeffersonian position).

Paul does this frequently and it's annoying and amateurish. While the section on Marshall's trip to Paris as special envoy and his multiple interactions with Tallyrand are very very enjoyable, Paul still can't help but include comments like Marshall sitting there "stone faced" or letting out a sigh for which we have no evidence.

Paul also alleges that Marshall had an affair with the French woman in whose home he was boarding at. While there are multiple bits of circumstantial evidence, Paul comes off as overconfident in his assertions given the lack of definitive proof.

Given the author's job as a law professor, his detailed histories of many of Marshall's opinions and the facts underlying those cases is particularly enjoyable. Unfortunately, Paul doesn't take nearly as critical an eye towards his subject as a more neutral, or dare I say professional, historian might. An otherwise enjoyable book suffers for it.

[Brian Willis · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are aren't many true biographies out there of John Marshall, probably because his personal life wasn't exceptionally noteworthy (though there are a couple of deeply ironic shockers about his sons near the very end of his life). This biography spends its first half covering the early history of the Republic and Marshall's role in it. An interminable amount of pages are spent on a loan dispute with France, one which Marshall personally worked on, but it doesn't bear much impact. This book shines when we finally get to Marshall's tenure as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (1800-1836), probably the most important ever. Surprisingly, Marshall wasn't especially distinguished as an attorney, possessed no experience as a judge, and displayed no interest in the Supreme Court. But he clashed with his cousin Jefferson, became disenchanted with Monroe and John Quincy Adams, and absolutely battled Andrew Jackson. In the process, Marshall defined the judiciary as a check on the executive and legislative branches, established national jurisdiction over interstate commerce, ruled in the favor of slaves and Native Americans, and paved the way for the rise of corporations in America. All of these factors make him probably the top Chief Justice ever (only Earl Warren is in the discussion).

A relatively easy read, even in the legal section of the Supreme Court cases in the second half. Anybody who wishes to be well versed in early American or Supreme Court history should read about John Marshall and this is one of a few books that fits the bill.

[Anne · Rating 3 out of 5]

An excellent, easy, and informative read. I enjoyed it immensely and learned much about an individual we are taught to admire, but of whom I knew very little about. My only real complaint is one that I often find with biographies, the tendency to present the subject always in the absolute best light to the often severe detriment of anyone who might have opposed that person. In this case, it is Jefferson. While I understand the animosity between Jefferson and Marshall requires this to some extent, given that this is a biography of Marshall, I am left feeling like I need to read a biography of Jefferson now to balance things out. Jefferson, in this book, was often presented as a clear villain, whether he actually was or not. I’m not a huge Jefferson supporter at all, but I would like to think that Marshall’s legacy can stand on its own without having to resort to this. Still, I highly recommend this book to anyone who is looking to learn about Marshall or the early Supreme Court.

[David Dunlap · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well-done portrait of the life and work of the 4th Chief Justice of the United States, the longest-serving (to date) and arguably the most influential. Paul is especially helpful in explaining the reasons for the friction between Marshall and his cousin Thomas Jefferson. He also brings out the crucial role Marshall played in the development of the Bill of Rights, suggesting that he, no less than James Madison, deserves to be thought of as their 'Father.' Marshall is shown a devoted husband (although Paul suggests he may not have been entirely faithful to his sickly wife Polly, he does not draw any conclusions on the matter), an unassuming man (sometimes greeting visitors at his front door with broom and dustpan) with a fine sense of humor and a love for children and games, and, perhaps most importantly, sufficiently charismatic and so dedicated to consensus that a surprising number of decisions from the Marshall Court were unanimous (as well as written by the CJ himself). (Given the contentious political atmosphere at the time, this is a remarkable achievement!) As a professor of constitutional and international law, the author is perfectly qualified to demonstrate the importance of many of Marshall's decisions -- and is not averse to pointing out places in which he was inconsistent, manufacturing principles out of whole cloth, even (in one instance) perhaps to the point of suborning perjury to obtain his desired result. (In fact, Paul is perhaps too good, too thorough, in his legal analysis: I sometimes found myself bogged down in the latter half of the book. Hence my 'deduction' of one, perhaps even two stars in my rating.) Marshall's practicality is constantly contrasted with Jefferson's more idealistic point of view (as Paul points out, "No Marshall biography can avoid taking sides in their conflicted relationship."). It is a measure of Paul's success that he makes a strong case, clearly coming down on the side of Marshall...and manages to persuade his readers (at least *this* one!) to do so as well.

[Cynda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sometimes foils serve in literary arts. But in historical study? This book seems to largely compare as foils the distant cousins John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson. The comparison of the cousins does clarify much. Likely over clarifies.

While my assertion that the text over clarifies still stands, I see the arc of the book. The cousins with different backgrounds, opportunities, and temperaments join two different political parties. How does Marshall who is aligned with the descendent political party negotiate between telling his interpretation of the US Constitution and getting the other party to support his interpretation. the negotiation between polarities of the American political systems and the cousins lend the cousins to being described in sharp contrast, as foils to each other.

In the end, we see both cousins are respected.

The argument clarifies.
The argument disillusioned several of us in the GR group I read with, a private nonfiction group. Now we will be participating in a reading survey about Thomas Jefferson. We readers seek to heal our disillusionment. And we will heal. More Books sometimes does equal More Healing.