What do you think?
Rate this book
John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court
The life of John Marshall, Founding Father and America's premier Chief Justice
In 1801, a genial and brilliant Revolutionary War veteran and politician became the fourth Chief Justice of the United States. He would hold the post for 34 years (still a record), expounding the Constitution he loved. Before he joined the Court, it was the weakling of the federal government, lacking in dignity and clout. After he died, it could never be ignored again. Through three decades of dramatic cases involving businessmen, scoundrels, Native Americans, and slaves, Marshall defended the federal government against unruly states, established the Supreme Court's right to rebuke Congress or the president, and unleashed the power of American commerce. For better and for worse, he made the Supreme Court a pillar of American life.
In John Marshall, award-winning biographer Richard Brookhiser vividly chronicles America's greatest judge and the world he made.
In 1801, a genial and brilliant Revolutionary War veteran and politician became the fourth Chief Justice of the United States. He would hold the post for 34 years (still a record), expounding the Constitution he loved. Before he joined the Court, it was the weakling of the federal government, lacking in dignity and clout. After he died, it could never be ignored again. Through three decades of dramatic cases involving businessmen, scoundrels, Native Americans, and slaves, Marshall defended the federal government against unruly states, established the Supreme Court's right to rebuke Congress or the president, and unleashed the power of American commerce. For better and for worse, he made the Supreme Court a pillar of American life.
In John Marshall, award-winning biographer Richard Brookhiser vividly chronicles America's greatest judge and the world he made.
325 pages, Hardcover
First published November 15, 2018
176 people are currently reading
798 people want to read
About the author
Richard Brookhiser
30 books123 followersRichard Brookhiser, author of Founding Father (Free Press 1996), is a senior editor at National Review and a columnist for The New York Observer.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews
December 14, 2018
In March 2018 I read Joel Richard Paul’s “Without Precedent Chief Justice John Marshall and His Time”. The book wet my appetite to learn more about John Marshall. When I saw this newly released biography of Marshall by Richard Brookhiser, I had to buy it.
John Marshall (1755-1835) was the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The first was John Jay, then John Rutledge and then Oliver Ellsworth. None of these men served in the position long. Marshall was sworn in as Chief Justice in 1801 and died in 1835 in a stagecoach accident when travelling for the Court. Marshall laid down the principles of the law and policies of the Court. According to Brookhiser it was Marshall that brought dignity to the Court.
John Richard Paul’s book “Without Precedent” was longer and provided more information about Marshall’s personal life as well as more in-depth analysis of his various rulings. Brookhiser is more concise and covered primarily his working life and relationship with George Washington. Brookhiser’s book was a bit more entertaining. I think that Brookhiser’s biography is ideal for the lay reader. Richard Brookhiser is a journalist and biographer. I have read his biographies of Alexander Hamilton and George Washington.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is nine hours thirty-one minutes. Robert Fass does an excellent job narrating the book. Fass is a well-known narrator. He has been nominated for the Audie Award eight times and won it twice. He also has won many AudioFile Earphone Awards.
John Marshall (1755-1835) was the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The first was John Jay, then John Rutledge and then Oliver Ellsworth. None of these men served in the position long. Marshall was sworn in as Chief Justice in 1801 and died in 1835 in a stagecoach accident when travelling for the Court. Marshall laid down the principles of the law and policies of the Court. According to Brookhiser it was Marshall that brought dignity to the Court.
John Richard Paul’s book “Without Precedent” was longer and provided more information about Marshall’s personal life as well as more in-depth analysis of his various rulings. Brookhiser is more concise and covered primarily his working life and relationship with George Washington. Brookhiser’s book was a bit more entertaining. I think that Brookhiser’s biography is ideal for the lay reader. Richard Brookhiser is a journalist and biographer. I have read his biographies of Alexander Hamilton and George Washington.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is nine hours thirty-one minutes. Robert Fass does an excellent job narrating the book. Fass is a well-known narrator. He has been nominated for the Audie Award eight times and won it twice. He also has won many AudioFile Earphone Awards.
November 21, 2018
The life of John Marshall (1755–1835) spans the first and formative decades of the United States. Born in colonial Virginia, Marshall fought for American independence under George Washington, whom he revered as the beau ideal of a true republican and memorialized in a biography. “For the rest of his life,” Richard Brookhiser writes, “John Marshall saw Washington as his commander and himself as one of his troops.” And so, when Washington personally urged Marshall to run for Congress in 1798, he didsuccessfully, representing Virginia’s 13thDistrict from 1799–1800.
Like Washington, Marshall was a Federalist. John Adams tapped him to be U.S. Secretary of State in 1800. After the momentous 1800 election, in which Adams and the Federalists lost both the White House and Congress to Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, Adams appointed Marshall chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court the month before Jefferson’s inauguration. Marshall and Jefferson were cousins, and though both were patriots, they were indefatigable political foes. Marshall swore Jefferson into office, then used Supreme Court legal opinions to continue the Federalist battle against the Democrats for the next 34 years. When he died, Andrew Jackson was president. Roger Taney—author of the Dred v. Scott infamy—succeeded him as chief justice.
Richard Brookhiser surveys Marshall’s “public career and its effects” in his engaging new study. This is not a comprehensive biography of the great man. In many ways, it is the story of the most significant cases he tried:Marbury v. Madison, United States vs. Burr(in which Jonathan Edwards’ grandson and Alexander Hamilton’s killer stood trial for treason), Fletcher v. Peck, Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward,McCullough v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, Gibbons v. Ogden, the Antelopecase (touching on slavery), Ogdenv. Saunders(a bankruptcy case, this Ogden being the nephew of the previous Ogden—evidence of a litigious family, no doubt; also, the only case in which Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion), The Cherokee Nation v. Georgiaand Worcester v. Georgia(both cases dealing with Georgia’s abominable treatment of Native Americans), and Barron v. Baltimore, among others.
Though not well known today, outside the legal profession at least, these cases were flashpoints of controversy between a broadly Federalist vision of the American republic and a Democratic one. Was the United States a “union” or a “confederacy”? Where was the boundary between federal supremacy and states’ rights? Could Congress establish a Bank of the United States without explicit wording in the Constitution? More broadly, was the law a “debt against the living,” in which generations were obligated by the laws of previous generations? Or did “the land belong in usufruct to the living,” in which each generation passed laws as it saw fit? The words were Madison’s and Jefferson’s, respectively, but the sentiments were Marshall’s and Jefferson’s exactly.
Brookhiser is a political journalist, not a lawyer, so his descriptions of both the facts of these cases and their relevance are easy to follow and enlightening. In a summary chapter on Marshall’s legacy, he notes that Marshall brought “dignity” to the Supreme Court. How it tried cases and how it rendered opinions strengthened the hand of what Hamilton called “the least dangerous branch” of the federal government. If the membership and opinions of the Supreme Court loom large in the minds of Americans today, Marshall should receive credit.
But more than the dignity of the Supreme Court, Marshall’s legacy, was “defending the Constitution as the people’s supreme act.” Brookhiser explains: “The people had made a new government, giving it new powers, and binding it with new prohibitions…. Marshall devoted his decades as chief justice to explicating and upholding the people’s government against the attacks of men he deemed demagogues in Congress, in the states (including his own Virginia), and in the White House (including his own cousin).” That defense relied on the Constitution’s “words” and—sometimes or—“the historical context of its creation.” Marshall knew both intimately. He had worked for the document’s ratification. He had witnessed the struggles and trials that had brought it into being.
In the last months of his life, as his health deteriorated, Marshall feared for the future of the Constitution he had spent his life laboring to explain and defend. Marshall’s opinions “were substantially the policies of Washington and his most trusted aide, Alexander Hamilton”—slavery being the great exception. But by 1835, Jackson was in power, states’ rights were on the rise, and Roger B. Taney was in the wings. From then until the Civil War, an anti-Marshall view of the nature of the U.S. government and the meaning of its Constitution prevailed. It was as if the arguments between the cousins—Marshall and Jefferson—had never gone away.
Today, we live in a vastly different era. Both union and emancipation are taken for granted, which they were not in Marshall’s era, not even by Marshall himself. But the court Marshall once led continues to fascinate and repel, depending on who wins and who loses before the bench. To that extent, as William Faulkner put it so well, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” We all live in John Marshall’s shadow.
Book Reviewed
Richard Brookhiser, John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court(New York: Basic Books, 2018).
P.S. If you liked my review, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
Like Washington, Marshall was a Federalist. John Adams tapped him to be U.S. Secretary of State in 1800. After the momentous 1800 election, in which Adams and the Federalists lost both the White House and Congress to Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, Adams appointed Marshall chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court the month before Jefferson’s inauguration. Marshall and Jefferson were cousins, and though both were patriots, they were indefatigable political foes. Marshall swore Jefferson into office, then used Supreme Court legal opinions to continue the Federalist battle against the Democrats for the next 34 years. When he died, Andrew Jackson was president. Roger Taney—author of the Dred v. Scott infamy—succeeded him as chief justice.
Richard Brookhiser surveys Marshall’s “public career and its effects” in his engaging new study. This is not a comprehensive biography of the great man. In many ways, it is the story of the most significant cases he tried:Marbury v. Madison, United States vs. Burr(in which Jonathan Edwards’ grandson and Alexander Hamilton’s killer stood trial for treason), Fletcher v. Peck, Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward,McCullough v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, Gibbons v. Ogden, the Antelopecase (touching on slavery), Ogdenv. Saunders(a bankruptcy case, this Ogden being the nephew of the previous Ogden—evidence of a litigious family, no doubt; also, the only case in which Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion), The Cherokee Nation v. Georgiaand Worcester v. Georgia(both cases dealing with Georgia’s abominable treatment of Native Americans), and Barron v. Baltimore, among others.
Though not well known today, outside the legal profession at least, these cases were flashpoints of controversy between a broadly Federalist vision of the American republic and a Democratic one. Was the United States a “union” or a “confederacy”? Where was the boundary between federal supremacy and states’ rights? Could Congress establish a Bank of the United States without explicit wording in the Constitution? More broadly, was the law a “debt against the living,” in which generations were obligated by the laws of previous generations? Or did “the land belong in usufruct to the living,” in which each generation passed laws as it saw fit? The words were Madison’s and Jefferson’s, respectively, but the sentiments were Marshall’s and Jefferson’s exactly.
Brookhiser is a political journalist, not a lawyer, so his descriptions of both the facts of these cases and their relevance are easy to follow and enlightening. In a summary chapter on Marshall’s legacy, he notes that Marshall brought “dignity” to the Supreme Court. How it tried cases and how it rendered opinions strengthened the hand of what Hamilton called “the least dangerous branch” of the federal government. If the membership and opinions of the Supreme Court loom large in the minds of Americans today, Marshall should receive credit.
But more than the dignity of the Supreme Court, Marshall’s legacy, was “defending the Constitution as the people’s supreme act.” Brookhiser explains: “The people had made a new government, giving it new powers, and binding it with new prohibitions…. Marshall devoted his decades as chief justice to explicating and upholding the people’s government against the attacks of men he deemed demagogues in Congress, in the states (including his own Virginia), and in the White House (including his own cousin).” That defense relied on the Constitution’s “words” and—sometimes or—“the historical context of its creation.” Marshall knew both intimately. He had worked for the document’s ratification. He had witnessed the struggles and trials that had brought it into being.
In the last months of his life, as his health deteriorated, Marshall feared for the future of the Constitution he had spent his life laboring to explain and defend. Marshall’s opinions “were substantially the policies of Washington and his most trusted aide, Alexander Hamilton”—slavery being the great exception. But by 1835, Jackson was in power, states’ rights were on the rise, and Roger B. Taney was in the wings. From then until the Civil War, an anti-Marshall view of the nature of the U.S. government and the meaning of its Constitution prevailed. It was as if the arguments between the cousins—Marshall and Jefferson—had never gone away.
Today, we live in a vastly different era. Both union and emancipation are taken for granted, which they were not in Marshall’s era, not even by Marshall himself. But the court Marshall once led continues to fascinate and repel, depending on who wins and who loses before the bench. To that extent, as William Faulkner put it so well, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” We all live in John Marshall’s shadow.
Book Reviewed
Richard Brookhiser, John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court(New York: Basic Books, 2018).
P.S. If you liked my review, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
March 4, 2019
John Marshal holds a very special place in American history. Without his leadership on the Supreme Court in the early years of the republic, establishing the Constitutional role of the Federal judiciary, this might be a different country today, if it would have survived at all.
I have read two other biographies of Marshall over the years: John Marshall, A Life in Law by Leonard Barker and John Marshall, Defender of a Nation by Jean Edward Smith, each a longer and more detailed account of Marshall’s life and work.
However, Richard Brookhiser surpasses them. He reveals the man as well as the jurist. Brookhiserk’s delightfully breezy and disarmingly honest style make his biography of Marshall a remarkably enjoyable read. His taking Jefferson down off of his exalted perch is also refreshing. Marshall’s glaring blind spot was, of course, the institution of slavery. As a Virginia land and slave owner this lapse may be more easily understood than forgiven, but measuring the totality of the man, as Brookhiser strives to do, this country is far better off for Marshall’ service to his nation.
I have read two other biographies of Marshall over the years: John Marshall, A Life in Law by Leonard Barker and John Marshall, Defender of a Nation by Jean Edward Smith, each a longer and more detailed account of Marshall’s life and work.
However, Richard Brookhiser surpasses them. He reveals the man as well as the jurist. Brookhiserk’s delightfully breezy and disarmingly honest style make his biography of Marshall a remarkably enjoyable read. His taking Jefferson down off of his exalted perch is also refreshing. Marshall’s glaring blind spot was, of course, the institution of slavery. As a Virginia land and slave owner this lapse may be more easily understood than forgiven, but measuring the totality of the man, as Brookhiser strives to do, this country is far better off for Marshall’ service to his nation.
August 18, 2024
Marbury had been a monument, this decision was monstrosity.
I have doggedly dragged myself through lengthy biographies of George Washington and John Quincy Adams. It is therefore a nice change to knock off a short one of an early American public figure that conveys the parts that matter to me. It is possible that the substance of John Marshall is subject to the author’s deliberate biases in favour of orginalism, yet I find myself pretty relaxed about it.
Short books boost my reading challenge numbers
Marshall would reach for natural rights language again, in defense of contracts, and consider it, in defense of another race.
John Marshall keeps its short and simple. There was a judge. He made some decisions which lay the foundations of jurisprudence in the United States. Here’s the CliffNotes of those decisions in one book, livened up with a vignette or two (he was in a quoits club! A lot of his kids died!). Seems pretty fine to me.
I am sure there are more comprehensive biographies of John Marshall that cover in thrilling detail the vagaries of life during the American Revolution and at the turn of the 19th century, unearthing details that will have been put to print only a dozen or so times before. Go for those if that is your thing.
I do accept that a more detailed biography would better tease out the psychological underpinnings as to who Marshall was and the context in which he operated in but, to go out on a limb here, Marshall’s contributions to the Constitutional Convention and his judicial decisions are sufficient information for 98(ish)% of readers. Credit to Marshall for his service in the American Revolution and, as a 27 year old, waiting until his wife was almost sixteen before marrying her but, as Brookhiser notes, every legal case is a short story and they tended to be more interesting than Marshall himself (steam ships are cool, transporting slaves is bad).
Getting a solid summary of early jurisprudence from a relative layman’s perspective was what I was looking for and that is what I got. I will not embarrass myself by summarizing the Brookhiser’s discussions of those cases but they were easy to follow – which is quite a lot of credit considering how opaque even good judgements can be. I did see a review criticizing Brookhiser for not covering Marshall’s deliberately weak majority opinion in Cherokee Nation vs Georgia so as to put the dissent in a brighter light - Brookhiser does go over Marshall’s decision making, so I am not sure what the exact issue is there other than perhaps there is less detail than other biographies (which I don’t need).
The subtle slant
If the American fabric is right, then lawyers and judges, mindful of the inroads of time and the wayward power of language, must do their best to read the Constitution as Marshall did, as it was written and as it was meant.
I am an unabashedly biased reviewer. My social and political positions will affect how I judge a book. That’s the cool thing about doing it for free. So, when I saw that Brookhiser wrote for publications such as National Review, I inwardly groaned. I feared this would be a Rich Lowry redux, where a potted biography contorts its subject into modern reactionary positions.
The funny thing is, Brookhiser plays it pretty straight here. Experts in American case law will probably quibble but the summaries appear reasonably fair to me. Marshall (in Brookhiser’s retelling) often draws upon supporting material explaining the drafters’ thinking around the terms of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which builds Brookhiser’s case for orignalism as the preferred standard, but Brookhiser does also acknowledge Marshall’s advantages of having first hand knowledge of the events and people involved. Brookhiser is also more aware of the flaws of the Founding Fathers, unlike the sycophantic paens Scalia was prone to.
I will not go into detail about Brookhiser’s concluding arguments for originalism because: (a) there is an acknowledgement of the difficulties with interpretation rather than a straight “slam dunk” the opposing view; and (b) it’s not really a big deal to me. It does not really offend me from a reviewing perspective that Brookhiser has written this book to advance originalism, even if I don’t agree with it, because he does not turn the book into a painful read. I’m a big boy, I can pick and choose what I take from John Marshall - Brookhiser’s summaries seem to be really good!
Marshall’s decision in Gibbons v Ogden was like an elephant standing on one leg.
So yes, this is not a comprehensive biography of John Marshall – the question is, just how much do you need one?
I have doggedly dragged myself through lengthy biographies of George Washington and John Quincy Adams. It is therefore a nice change to knock off a short one of an early American public figure that conveys the parts that matter to me. It is possible that the substance of John Marshall is subject to the author’s deliberate biases in favour of orginalism, yet I find myself pretty relaxed about it.
Short books boost my reading challenge numbers
Marshall would reach for natural rights language again, in defense of contracts, and consider it, in defense of another race.
John Marshall keeps its short and simple. There was a judge. He made some decisions which lay the foundations of jurisprudence in the United States. Here’s the CliffNotes of those decisions in one book, livened up with a vignette or two (he was in a quoits club! A lot of his kids died!). Seems pretty fine to me.
I am sure there are more comprehensive biographies of John Marshall that cover in thrilling detail the vagaries of life during the American Revolution and at the turn of the 19th century, unearthing details that will have been put to print only a dozen or so times before. Go for those if that is your thing.
I do accept that a more detailed biography would better tease out the psychological underpinnings as to who Marshall was and the context in which he operated in but, to go out on a limb here, Marshall’s contributions to the Constitutional Convention and his judicial decisions are sufficient information for 98(ish)% of readers. Credit to Marshall for his service in the American Revolution and, as a 27 year old, waiting until his wife was almost sixteen before marrying her but, as Brookhiser notes, every legal case is a short story and they tended to be more interesting than Marshall himself (steam ships are cool, transporting slaves is bad).
Getting a solid summary of early jurisprudence from a relative layman’s perspective was what I was looking for and that is what I got. I will not embarrass myself by summarizing the Brookhiser’s discussions of those cases but they were easy to follow – which is quite a lot of credit considering how opaque even good judgements can be. I did see a review criticizing Brookhiser for not covering Marshall’s deliberately weak majority opinion in Cherokee Nation vs Georgia so as to put the dissent in a brighter light - Brookhiser does go over Marshall’s decision making, so I am not sure what the exact issue is there other than perhaps there is less detail than other biographies (which I don’t need).
The subtle slant
If the American fabric is right, then lawyers and judges, mindful of the inroads of time and the wayward power of language, must do their best to read the Constitution as Marshall did, as it was written and as it was meant.
I am an unabashedly biased reviewer. My social and political positions will affect how I judge a book. That’s the cool thing about doing it for free. So, when I saw that Brookhiser wrote for publications such as National Review, I inwardly groaned. I feared this would be a Rich Lowry redux, where a potted biography contorts its subject into modern reactionary positions.
The funny thing is, Brookhiser plays it pretty straight here. Experts in American case law will probably quibble but the summaries appear reasonably fair to me. Marshall (in Brookhiser’s retelling) often draws upon supporting material explaining the drafters’ thinking around the terms of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which builds Brookhiser’s case for orignalism as the preferred standard, but Brookhiser does also acknowledge Marshall’s advantages of having first hand knowledge of the events and people involved. Brookhiser is also more aware of the flaws of the Founding Fathers, unlike the sycophantic paens Scalia was prone to.
I will not go into detail about Brookhiser’s concluding arguments for originalism because: (a) there is an acknowledgement of the difficulties with interpretation rather than a straight “slam dunk” the opposing view; and (b) it’s not really a big deal to me. It does not really offend me from a reviewing perspective that Brookhiser has written this book to advance originalism, even if I don’t agree with it, because he does not turn the book into a painful read. I’m a big boy, I can pick and choose what I take from John Marshall - Brookhiser’s summaries seem to be really good!
Marshall’s decision in Gibbons v Ogden was like an elephant standing on one leg.
So yes, this is not a comprehensive biography of John Marshall – the question is, just how much do you need one?
March 30, 2019
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 create 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. I 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 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 a 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).
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.
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 create 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. I 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 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 a 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).
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.
January 26, 2019
Fairly straightforward biography of the noted Chief Justice of the United States, appointed by an outgoing John Adams and serving the longest (to date) in that position, until the second Andrew Jackson administration. -- Brookhiser is among the best American historians of the day. I especially appreciate the manageable length of this volume (recent biographies so often seem to suffer from literary elephantiasis). Brookhiser's style is clear-cut and easy to follow; he is quite good at explaining the issues involved in the major cases that appeared in the Marshall Court and how the Chief managed to achieve consensus and even unanimity, even as Republican presidents began to make court appointments to fill vacancies caused by death or resignation. The author highlights the lifelong struggle (enmity might not be too strong a word!) between Marshall and his cousin Thomas Jefferson. -- There are, of course, numerous ways to approach a biographical subject. Brookhiser makes its clear at the outset that his book will not be chockablock with gossipy tittle-tattle. Perhaps it should have been: when he does share this sort of detail, he is quite good at it -- and his subject springs to life. More insights of this kind might have enlivened his book and helped the reader understand Marshall as a person. Also, the author's treatment of the Marshall Court decisions makes for awkward chronology. -- On the whole, then, this is a good, reliable biography of an important American, especially for those who might be in a hurry or unwilling to commit to a larger, more sprawling canvas that might reveal its subject more vividly.
January 23, 2021
A very well written biography of the life and career of arguably the most important Supreme Court Justice in history, John Marshall. This was a perfect complimentary read for me to go with the Presidential biographies and other historical books that I've read the past couple years about the first two political eras of the U.S., and it allowed me to gain a much deeper understanding of some of our pivotal early Supreme Court cases.
Clocking at under 100,000 words, this certainly is not the "definitive" biography of Marshall. Many events are only superficially covered, and none of the events are dug into with the rigor you would get from a Chernow or Caro book. That being said, I have a definite understanding of who Marshall was and his role in the United States' development in the early 19th century. I also have a good, if not great, feeling for Marshall on a personal level as a human being.
Would certainly recommend to anyone who wants a very well written, comprehensive yet brief recounting of Marshall's life. I look forward to reading more books in the future about the Courts tumultuous relationship with American democracy and Constitutional principles.
Clocking at under 100,000 words, this certainly is not the "definitive" biography of Marshall. Many events are only superficially covered, and none of the events are dug into with the rigor you would get from a Chernow or Caro book. That being said, I have a definite understanding of who Marshall was and his role in the United States' development in the early 19th century. I also have a good, if not great, feeling for Marshall on a personal level as a human being.
Would certainly recommend to anyone who wants a very well written, comprehensive yet brief recounting of Marshall's life. I look forward to reading more books in the future about the Courts tumultuous relationship with American democracy and Constitutional principles.
October 28, 2019
3.5 stars. This book is about one of the great men of the era that saw the implementation of the Constitution as the 'Law of the Land.' It details many of the cases which Marshall presided over, and which made this country what it was to become despite the efforts by members of the other two branches. Unfortunately, the black mark of slavery was allowed to smolder until the Civil War became necessary.
Most of the book is about the law, some about Marshall personally, but perhaps that is only fitting since the Law was his life.
Most of the book is about the law, some about Marshall personally, but perhaps that is only fitting since the Law was his life.
June 25, 2019
34 years as chief justice. Served 6 presidents. Despised his cousin, Thomas Jefferson. Adored George Washington. Great book.
March 31, 2020
A simple primer on the longest serving Chief Justice.
October 16, 2018
A biography of the most important Supreme Court Justice in US history is not something you except to fly through. Nevertheless, once Marshall got onto the Supreme Court, I moved through the book very quickly. Brookhiser sticks to Marshall's professional life most of the time, though of course his personal life is mentioned, so if reading a bunch of summaries of cases and Marshall's opinions on things sounds boring, this is not the book for you. This seemed impeccably researched, primary sourcing as much as possible, with many letters and opinions quoted but not so much as to bog down the book with that. The author's admiration for Marshall is very visible, particularly when describing Jefferson, where Brookhiser definitely showed some disdain (I guess Marshall would have agreed with that). Marshall was very big into contract supremacy over all other law where possible, which was very new to me, and I liked reading about his views on constitutional minutiae. Brookhiser did a really good job of keeping the legalese to minimum, explaining law in understandable terms yet still in depth. To sum up, I fully recommend this book to people interested in American history and government, for while it focuses on Marshall, his core work is what created American government as we know it.
A copy of this book was given to the reviewer through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
A copy of this book was given to the reviewer through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
February 14, 2024
John Marshall, a Federalist, served as Chief Justice in the early days of the country. He led and unified the court and they had to decide original issues like striking down a law passed by Congress that violated the Constitution, questions regarding federal supremacy over the states, and a criminal defendant’s right to documents over the objection of the president - just to state a few. Marshall was dignified and respected, and established the Supreme Court’s authority and legitimacy. The Court became an equal to Congress and the President. Not an exciting book but he made a difference.
February 16, 2019
John Marshall was the fourth Chief Justice of the United States of America. Marshall held the post for 34 years, beginning in 1801. Up until such time as Marshall assumed the post, the Supreme Court lacked clout, dignity, or any semblance of equality among the three federal branches of government ruling the United States of America. Richard Brookhiser wrote 'John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court' as a chronicle of Marshall, his effect on the court, and the legacy his time upon the court had in establishing the legitimacy of the court in America.
As far as political temperament and philosophy, John Marshall was a member of the Federalist Party. Notable early Federalists included presidents George Washington, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton. President John Quincy Adams held beliefs of the Federalists, though it is not knowable to say that the son of the second president of the United States would have been elected president if the Federalist Party still existed in 1824.
In calling out party, it is important to emphasize that the story Richard Brookhiser tells within this biography is one of John Marshall's politics and his role in normalizing the functioning of the Supreme Court. While George Washington may have sought a one party system, party was a political force by the time of Marshall first assumed a lead role on the court. In fact, Marshall's cousin and third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, was on the opposite side of the aisle in what today is the Democratic Party. Jefferson and Marshall were in frequent opposition regarding interpretations of law and the course disputes of law should take. Brookhiser, the author, has never been a lawyer, either in training or practice.
According to review of the book by legal scholar Garrett Epps as published in 'The Washington Post', we learn this about Marshall and the biography: "Marshall’s great talent was his legal creativity, which takes hard work for a layperson or lawyer to appreciate. Brookhiser also underestimates the chaos and danger of the politics that he does highlight. Perhaps for that reason, he doesn’t give Marshall his full due."
Epps rightly goes on to indicate that 'John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court' is entertaining and instructive. We get to see Marshall's career in the United States Revolutionary War, his time as Secretary of State to president John Adams, and then his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The tenure as Chief Justice commenced when Thomas Jefferson took office.
Some distinguishing cases in Marshall's career included the following, as quoted from Epps: "In McCulloch v. Maryland, he laid out the contours of Congress’s commerce power; in Burr v. United States , he blunted the law of treason as a tool to punish political enemies; in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, he anchored the constitutional underpinnings of contract law; in Johnson v. M’Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia, he gave birth to the entire field of federal Indian law."
Epps is perhaps hardest on Brookhiser and strongest in support of Marshall in this: "But his most important creation is the doctrine of Marbury v. Madison — the idea that the Supreme Court has the power and the duty to invalidate acts of Congress that it finds in conflict with the Constitution. That result was by no means inevitable; to reach it, Marshall had to navigate a treacherous political landscape. If Brookhiser aims to reveal the politics surrounding Marshall’s career, he disappoints somewhat at this point. A fuller political profile of the Marshall years would give the reader more of the scope of his unlikely triumph."
The book does give some glimpse into perhaps the most disagreeable portion of Marshall's total life picture, which surround the subject of slavery in the United States. Both Marshall's rulings and lack of freeing of slaves at his death were noted shortcomings. Brookhiser gets into a single decision that Marshall had that never sided with slaves. Epps quotes from a 2018 book by Paul Finkelman titled Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation's Highest Court that there were at least seven instances where Marshall never once sided with slaves.
Overall, I found the book 'John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court' by Richard Brookhiser to be instructional in many ways. While taking into account the opportunities for more from Garrett Epps of 'The Washington Post', I appreciated the history lesson and exploration offered by the biography. My rating of the book is 3.50-stars on a scale of one-to-five stars.
As far as political temperament and philosophy, John Marshall was a member of the Federalist Party. Notable early Federalists included presidents George Washington, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton. President John Quincy Adams held beliefs of the Federalists, though it is not knowable to say that the son of the second president of the United States would have been elected president if the Federalist Party still existed in 1824.
In calling out party, it is important to emphasize that the story Richard Brookhiser tells within this biography is one of John Marshall's politics and his role in normalizing the functioning of the Supreme Court. While George Washington may have sought a one party system, party was a political force by the time of Marshall first assumed a lead role on the court. In fact, Marshall's cousin and third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, was on the opposite side of the aisle in what today is the Democratic Party. Jefferson and Marshall were in frequent opposition regarding interpretations of law and the course disputes of law should take. Brookhiser, the author, has never been a lawyer, either in training or practice.
According to review of the book by legal scholar Garrett Epps as published in 'The Washington Post', we learn this about Marshall and the biography: "Marshall’s great talent was his legal creativity, which takes hard work for a layperson or lawyer to appreciate. Brookhiser also underestimates the chaos and danger of the politics that he does highlight. Perhaps for that reason, he doesn’t give Marshall his full due."
Epps rightly goes on to indicate that 'John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court' is entertaining and instructive. We get to see Marshall's career in the United States Revolutionary War, his time as Secretary of State to president John Adams, and then his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The tenure as Chief Justice commenced when Thomas Jefferson took office.
Some distinguishing cases in Marshall's career included the following, as quoted from Epps: "In McCulloch v. Maryland, he laid out the contours of Congress’s commerce power; in Burr v. United States , he blunted the law of treason as a tool to punish political enemies; in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, he anchored the constitutional underpinnings of contract law; in Johnson v. M’Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia, he gave birth to the entire field of federal Indian law."
Epps is perhaps hardest on Brookhiser and strongest in support of Marshall in this: "But his most important creation is the doctrine of Marbury v. Madison — the idea that the Supreme Court has the power and the duty to invalidate acts of Congress that it finds in conflict with the Constitution. That result was by no means inevitable; to reach it, Marshall had to navigate a treacherous political landscape. If Brookhiser aims to reveal the politics surrounding Marshall’s career, he disappoints somewhat at this point. A fuller political profile of the Marshall years would give the reader more of the scope of his unlikely triumph."
The book does give some glimpse into perhaps the most disagreeable portion of Marshall's total life picture, which surround the subject of slavery in the United States. Both Marshall's rulings and lack of freeing of slaves at his death were noted shortcomings. Brookhiser gets into a single decision that Marshall had that never sided with slaves. Epps quotes from a 2018 book by Paul Finkelman titled Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation's Highest Court that there were at least seven instances where Marshall never once sided with slaves.
Overall, I found the book 'John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court' by Richard Brookhiser to be instructional in many ways. While taking into account the opportunities for more from Garrett Epps of 'The Washington Post', I appreciated the history lesson and exploration offered by the biography. My rating of the book is 3.50-stars on a scale of one-to-five stars.
December 10, 2018
Earlier this year, I read an engrossing biography of the Wright Brothers by the estimable David McCullough --- engrossing, that is, until about three-quarters through the book, when the Wrights are chiefly trying to build their business and deal with a morass of patent litigation. They learn through trial and error how to build a workable airplane, they show off their creation to skeptical groups in Ohio and adoring crowds in Paris, and then the story kind of sputters out, with Wilbur suffering an early death and Orville pottering around his Dayton research facility, working on the study of aeronautics. The fact that the book trails off isn’t McCullough’s fault --- that’s what happened, and he does his best to chronicle it, but the story just isn’t there.
In reading JOHN MARSHALL: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court, I was concerned that the same thing would happen. The well-known and monumental Marbury v. Madison case takes place very early in Marshall’s term on the court, which would stretch out to well over 30 years.
Marshall’s life, up until he was elevated to the Court, is lively and interesting, and author Richard Brookhiser does a masterful job of showing the forces that shaped his philosophy. Marshall was, all his long life, an acolyte of George Washington, under whom he served in the Revolutionary War. After the war, he lived a public-spirited life as a Virginia lawyer, serving on the state’s Constitutional ratification convention and in Congress --- and, not incidentally, engaging in a robust social life.
Marshall also served as a diplomat on his one foreign adventure, getting mixed up in the so-called “XYZ Affair,” which I had never actually understood until reading Brookhiser’s concise and neat explanation of just what it was and why it stirred up anti-French resentment in the young Republic. Marshall then was appointed Secretary of State by John Adams for the last year of his presidency, and as a lame-duck, Adams nominated Marshall to the office of Chief Justice.
Marbury was based on the rush to confirm Federalist appointees in the wake of Adams’ defeat by Thomas Jefferson, and so it was one of the first decisions of the Marshall Court. Brookhiser does an able job of deciphering both the odd series of events that led up to the case and Marshall’s closely reasoned, nearly impenetrable decision. But thissection does more than just shed light on Marbury; it sets the pattern for the rest of the book.
What remains is over 30 years of Supreme Court cases, none of them as interesting or as monumental as Marbury, all of which are wrapped up in the arcane politics of the era. Brookhiser is a fine prose stylist with impeccable flair, but even he struggles to make the details of some of the cases sparkle. The narrative never quite bogs down, but laden as it is with Marshall’s leaden legal prose, it has more than a few rough moments.
Brookhiser is more at home describing Marshall as a political animal --- as the last Federalist in a country that, at least briefly, was all Republican. Unable to direct the Court through political or ideological means, he worked behind the scenes through conviviality and charisma to mold the Court into his own image. Marshall insisted that all the Justices room together while in Washington, discussing cases over wine and darts. Brookhiser argues that his leadership of the Court, resulting in unanimous verdicts, not only led to its momentous decisions but firmly placed the Court as an equal partner in the Constitutional order.
JOHN MARSHALL will please legal scholars more than casual readers, but even the latter will find much to enjoy and savor here.
Reviewed by Curtis Edmonds
In reading JOHN MARSHALL: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court, I was concerned that the same thing would happen. The well-known and monumental Marbury v. Madison case takes place very early in Marshall’s term on the court, which would stretch out to well over 30 years.
Marshall’s life, up until he was elevated to the Court, is lively and interesting, and author Richard Brookhiser does a masterful job of showing the forces that shaped his philosophy. Marshall was, all his long life, an acolyte of George Washington, under whom he served in the Revolutionary War. After the war, he lived a public-spirited life as a Virginia lawyer, serving on the state’s Constitutional ratification convention and in Congress --- and, not incidentally, engaging in a robust social life.
Marshall also served as a diplomat on his one foreign adventure, getting mixed up in the so-called “XYZ Affair,” which I had never actually understood until reading Brookhiser’s concise and neat explanation of just what it was and why it stirred up anti-French resentment in the young Republic. Marshall then was appointed Secretary of State by John Adams for the last year of his presidency, and as a lame-duck, Adams nominated Marshall to the office of Chief Justice.
Marbury was based on the rush to confirm Federalist appointees in the wake of Adams’ defeat by Thomas Jefferson, and so it was one of the first decisions of the Marshall Court. Brookhiser does an able job of deciphering both the odd series of events that led up to the case and Marshall’s closely reasoned, nearly impenetrable decision. But thissection does more than just shed light on Marbury; it sets the pattern for the rest of the book.
What remains is over 30 years of Supreme Court cases, none of them as interesting or as monumental as Marbury, all of which are wrapped up in the arcane politics of the era. Brookhiser is a fine prose stylist with impeccable flair, but even he struggles to make the details of some of the cases sparkle. The narrative never quite bogs down, but laden as it is with Marshall’s leaden legal prose, it has more than a few rough moments.
Brookhiser is more at home describing Marshall as a political animal --- as the last Federalist in a country that, at least briefly, was all Republican. Unable to direct the Court through political or ideological means, he worked behind the scenes through conviviality and charisma to mold the Court into his own image. Marshall insisted that all the Justices room together while in Washington, discussing cases over wine and darts. Brookhiser argues that his leadership of the Court, resulting in unanimous verdicts, not only led to its momentous decisions but firmly placed the Court as an equal partner in the Constitutional order.
JOHN MARSHALL will please legal scholars more than casual readers, but even the latter will find much to enjoy and savor here.
Reviewed by Curtis Edmonds
January 8, 2019
John Marshall is one of the most consequential figures in the history of the United States, yet too little is known about him. In John Marshall : The Man Who Made The Supreme Court, journalist and author Richard Brookhiser seeks to help us know more about this man. In life Marshall was an unimposing character. Early in the book Brookhiser relates a story about Marshall at home in Richmond. He was dressed like any other rustic. A newcomer to town asked him to carry a turkey home from the market, not realizing until afterwards that he had used the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as a delivery man. Marshall was a man of humor. Brookhiser shares another anecdote in the book. The Justices would board in the same house when the Court was in session and they ate together. They established a custom that they could only have wine if it was raining. “Marshall would ask ‘Brother Story’ [Justice Joseph Story] to look out the window and say what the weather was. If Story reported that the sun was shining, Marshall would answer, ‘our jurisdiction extends over so large a territory…that it must be raining somewhere.’”
These anecdotes help to remind us that Marshall was an approachable and affable man. That did not make him weak. In his Introduction Brookhiser points out that “When Marshall died in 1835, he and the Court he led had rebuked two presidents, Congress, and a dozen states and laid down principles of law and politics that still apply.” That, of course, is why we know Marshall. He was the man who turned the Supreme Court into a powerful part of the United States government. Before Marshall the Supreme Court had little influence on the nation. After Marshall the influence was powerful.
The book is well written and easily approachable by the general reader. Brookhiser is a journalist by training and profession so he does not get into the weeds of trying to explain all of the minutiae behind the laws. Instead he focuses on the political implications of Marshall’s rulings. This is important because when Marshall established the idea of judicial oversight he inserted the Court into the politics of the new nation. Marshall was well aware that he was helping to guide the nation forward. He was a Revolutionary War veteran who had served on Washington’s staff. As a young member of the Virginia Ratifying Convention he fought hard alongside James Madison for the ratification of the Constitution. He was a successful attorney in private practice before moving into the government. He served under John Adams as Secretary of State before he became the third Chief Justice. Brookhiser takes us through his early years without succumbing that siren call of the historian: the rabbit trail. So many writers feel a need to set up a history by giving huge back stories or going off into minute detail about some side issue. Brookhiser deftly gives us what we need to understand the subject and keeps moving.
This is an excellent book and does justice to the subject. It also delivers the reader a well written, informative, and enjoyable experience.
These anecdotes help to remind us that Marshall was an approachable and affable man. That did not make him weak. In his Introduction Brookhiser points out that “When Marshall died in 1835, he and the Court he led had rebuked two presidents, Congress, and a dozen states and laid down principles of law and politics that still apply.” That, of course, is why we know Marshall. He was the man who turned the Supreme Court into a powerful part of the United States government. Before Marshall the Supreme Court had little influence on the nation. After Marshall the influence was powerful.
The book is well written and easily approachable by the general reader. Brookhiser is a journalist by training and profession so he does not get into the weeds of trying to explain all of the minutiae behind the laws. Instead he focuses on the political implications of Marshall’s rulings. This is important because when Marshall established the idea of judicial oversight he inserted the Court into the politics of the new nation. Marshall was well aware that he was helping to guide the nation forward. He was a Revolutionary War veteran who had served on Washington’s staff. As a young member of the Virginia Ratifying Convention he fought hard alongside James Madison for the ratification of the Constitution. He was a successful attorney in private practice before moving into the government. He served under John Adams as Secretary of State before he became the third Chief Justice. Brookhiser takes us through his early years without succumbing that siren call of the historian: the rabbit trail. So many writers feel a need to set up a history by giving huge back stories or going off into minute detail about some side issue. Brookhiser deftly gives us what we need to understand the subject and keeps moving.
This is an excellent book and does justice to the subject. It also delivers the reader a well written, informative, and enjoyable experience.
August 2, 2022
I was looking for a quick decent overview of John Marshall’s career and that’s exactly what I got. It’s well written, and fairly comprehensive for being so short. It’s mostly just a case by case walkthrough of the enduring Marshall cases with enough context to make them interesting. It’s too short to be a really deep history of the man and his times, but it’s a good starting point.
Some interesting things I learned: Marshall fought in the revolutionary war, alongside his father. He spent the winter at Valley Forge with Washington. He already had family connexions to the general from Virginia and he became a close supporter. He was generally a young booster of the early federalists, constantly trying to protect their legacy. He lifted much of his language in McCulloch v Maryland from Hamilton. He wasn’t at the constitutional convention, but was an important supporter of ratification in the Virginia legislature. One of the interesting characterizations Brookhiser makes of Marshall is that he was not only the last influential federalist, but he was also the last of the generation of great men from Virginia who dominated American politics and intellectual developments in the revolutionary era.
Some general trends the book highlights well: Marshall’s long service, and as importantly, the long service of the justices around him, gave the court an important stability and dignity that helped it grow as an institution. He had a good eye for growing institutional power, Marbury v Madison was not the only time where he let his political opponents win a case on grounds that aggrandized the court or the federal govt generally. Republicans and later democrats (most notably Jefferson and Jackson) saw his ability to do that and both fought him on it, though ultimately couldn’t crush the growth of the Court’s power, despite winning some key victories for their own agendas. Interestingly, the conclusion notes that Lincoln followed Jackson relatively closely as a big personality President attacking court decisions and decrying its broad authority. Lincoln’s attacks are remembered less starkly because he was on the right side of history, but the general point that the court continued to have strong fights with the executive right up to the civil war was interesting.
A miscellaneous interesting fact: he was a Jane Austen fan! He chastised a friend for leaving her off a list of important female authors. That’s an interesting anecdotal data point about who read her and liked her and when.
Some interesting things I learned: Marshall fought in the revolutionary war, alongside his father. He spent the winter at Valley Forge with Washington. He already had family connexions to the general from Virginia and he became a close supporter. He was generally a young booster of the early federalists, constantly trying to protect their legacy. He lifted much of his language in McCulloch v Maryland from Hamilton. He wasn’t at the constitutional convention, but was an important supporter of ratification in the Virginia legislature. One of the interesting characterizations Brookhiser makes of Marshall is that he was not only the last influential federalist, but he was also the last of the generation of great men from Virginia who dominated American politics and intellectual developments in the revolutionary era.
Some general trends the book highlights well: Marshall’s long service, and as importantly, the long service of the justices around him, gave the court an important stability and dignity that helped it grow as an institution. He had a good eye for growing institutional power, Marbury v Madison was not the only time where he let his political opponents win a case on grounds that aggrandized the court or the federal govt generally. Republicans and later democrats (most notably Jefferson and Jackson) saw his ability to do that and both fought him on it, though ultimately couldn’t crush the growth of the Court’s power, despite winning some key victories for their own agendas. Interestingly, the conclusion notes that Lincoln followed Jackson relatively closely as a big personality President attacking court decisions and decrying its broad authority. Lincoln’s attacks are remembered less starkly because he was on the right side of history, but the general point that the court continued to have strong fights with the executive right up to the civil war was interesting.
A miscellaneous interesting fact: he was a Jane Austen fan! He chastised a friend for leaving her off a list of important female authors. That’s an interesting anecdotal data point about who read her and liked her and when.
March 13, 2019
Forgive me for giving such a low rating to a really good book. Brookhiser is up to his usual standards. Having taken a slight detour with a book about Lincoln - granted with his ties to the founders - he returns to the founding generation. Brookhiser is fluid and engaging as always. If things start to get a bit too staid he is quick to throw in a witticism or aside. He truly is the master of these short bios.
So why the relatively low rating? Part is admittedly personal. I am not a huge fan of John Marshall. That he was right more often than wrong does not mean I have to like him. He represents what many on both sides complain about the Supreme Court - that it is inherently biased depending upon which party can stuff in the most members. For the small government types there is also the belief that once exposed some members "grow" and swing towards a more leftist/statist bent. Finally that the Supreme Court answers to no one and seems to sometimes make up the rules as it goes along.
While Brookhiser notes that Marshall kept the "mask of impartiality" he was a devotee to a party that held little sway after he was seated on the bench and had disappeared a decade hence. Which is not to say that we don't owe Marshall a great deal of gratitude for his decisions which laid the foundation for much of our understanding of our federal system.
It is these decisions however that leave left wanting when reading the book. It's not that Brookhiser does a bad job in reviewing them. Of course he does an amazing job explaining each case and then explaining Marshall's view. It's just that a passing familiarity with Marshall and his work may leave you with not much more to hold onto. Marshall was a private man and other than most basic outlines of his life can be discerned. We get to know Marshall the thinker and Supreme Court justice and in some ways see the man but perhaps not really know him. It's a petty complaint on my part, I know.
What it boils down to is that if you aren't familiar with Marshall or just want to know more about his career then you MUST read this book. You're unlikely to find a better one. If you already know about him then you still should read this book but don't expect to come away with a better understanding of what made him tick. You will, however, perhaps, come away with a deeper appreciation.
So why the relatively low rating? Part is admittedly personal. I am not a huge fan of John Marshall. That he was right more often than wrong does not mean I have to like him. He represents what many on both sides complain about the Supreme Court - that it is inherently biased depending upon which party can stuff in the most members. For the small government types there is also the belief that once exposed some members "grow" and swing towards a more leftist/statist bent. Finally that the Supreme Court answers to no one and seems to sometimes make up the rules as it goes along.
While Brookhiser notes that Marshall kept the "mask of impartiality" he was a devotee to a party that held little sway after he was seated on the bench and had disappeared a decade hence. Which is not to say that we don't owe Marshall a great deal of gratitude for his decisions which laid the foundation for much of our understanding of our federal system.
It is these decisions however that leave left wanting when reading the book. It's not that Brookhiser does a bad job in reviewing them. Of course he does an amazing job explaining each case and then explaining Marshall's view. It's just that a passing familiarity with Marshall and his work may leave you with not much more to hold onto. Marshall was a private man and other than most basic outlines of his life can be discerned. We get to know Marshall the thinker and Supreme Court justice and in some ways see the man but perhaps not really know him. It's a petty complaint on my part, I know.
What it boils down to is that if you aren't familiar with Marshall or just want to know more about his career then you MUST read this book. You're unlikely to find a better one. If you already know about him then you still should read this book but don't expect to come away with a better understanding of what made him tick. You will, however, perhaps, come away with a deeper appreciation.
October 25, 2024
Many years ago, (I cannot tell you how many) I heard Alistair Cooke reveal to his television audience that his favorite institution of the United States government was the Supreme Court. His reason was simple and rare. He liked that the Supreme Court had the power to undo or overturn a ruling or verdict the Court had previously made. We recently saw an example of this with the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.
That statement by Cooke became the catalyst for my more-than-casual following of the Court since then. However, it has taken me all those years to read a biography of John Marshall, Chief Justice for 35 years. I confess that I've been looking for Jean Edward Smith's bio of Marshall, but failing to find it, I turned to this effort by Richard Brookhiser.
The author delves deeply into landmark cases decided by the Court, some familiar and some not so much. Paraphrasing words heard by millions of people every Saturday afternoon for at least 35 years, (my apologies to Jim McKay), these cases illustrated THE HUMAN DRAMA OF LEGAL COMPETITION on the Bench, among the litigants, and between Presidents, Congressmen, and Justices. What Brookhiser teaches us is that the division of the country dominating the political landscape in the 21st Century is nothing new under the sun. The Nation has survived the former battles; there is no guarantee that it will survive this one.
I would like to have read more about Marshall's private life. The premature death of his wife Polly probably killed much of any life he might have had outside his work on the Court.
Many young Americans spend hours memorizing the order of the Presidents. I believe we would do well to learn more about our Supreme Court justices, especially John Marshall, who served aside six Presidents, swearing in five. His appointment is arguably the most important act by President John Adams. It was also his last.
Three stars waxing
That statement by Cooke became the catalyst for my more-than-casual following of the Court since then. However, it has taken me all those years to read a biography of John Marshall, Chief Justice for 35 years. I confess that I've been looking for Jean Edward Smith's bio of Marshall, but failing to find it, I turned to this effort by Richard Brookhiser.
The author delves deeply into landmark cases decided by the Court, some familiar and some not so much. Paraphrasing words heard by millions of people every Saturday afternoon for at least 35 years, (my apologies to Jim McKay), these cases illustrated THE HUMAN DRAMA OF LEGAL COMPETITION on the Bench, among the litigants, and between Presidents, Congressmen, and Justices. What Brookhiser teaches us is that the division of the country dominating the political landscape in the 21st Century is nothing new under the sun. The Nation has survived the former battles; there is no guarantee that it will survive this one.
I would like to have read more about Marshall's private life. The premature death of his wife Polly probably killed much of any life he might have had outside his work on the Court.
Many young Americans spend hours memorizing the order of the Presidents. I believe we would do well to learn more about our Supreme Court justices, especially John Marshall, who served aside six Presidents, swearing in five. His appointment is arguably the most important act by President John Adams. It was also his last.
Three stars waxing
August 7, 2019
H. W. Brands called Richard Brookhiser (b. 1955), senior editor of National Review, “a master of the interpretive biography.” That judgment is certainly true of this volume, which demonstrates Brookhiser’s firm command of English prose with only a rare misstep when attempting to be overly clever.
Brookhiser is not a lawyer, and he makes it clear he intends to focus on Marshall’s intersection with politics rather than on his private life or his legal creativity per se. Though the book is fun to read even for the cognoscenti, those with deeper understanding of how Marshall bent legal raw material to his sophisticated intellect will quickly appreciate that there is more to Marshall than Brookhiser can provide in this overview. He does quote an alleged avowal of Jefferson, “When conversing with Marshall, I never admit anything. So sure as you admit any position to be good, no matter how remote from the conclusion he seeks to establish, you are gone.” But Brookhiser passes on a similar outburst from John Randolph about one of Marshall’s opinions: “Wrong, all wrong, but no man in the United States can tell why or wherein.”
Still, I felt comfortable in Brookhiser’s hands. Except for Marshall’s blindness to the combined injustice of slavery and its political threat to the Constitution that he was defending, the conservative Brookhiser sympathizes with Marshall’s views throughout, especially about the necessity of government to defend private property. And I sympathize with Brookhiser, especially in his antagonism to Thomas Jefferson, who “schemes, whines, and behaves unethically” (271) throughout the book. (I’d wager this book has the most negative view of Jefferson of any written in the 21st century—among those that never mention Sally Hemings.)
Brookhiser is not a lawyer, and he makes it clear he intends to focus on Marshall’s intersection with politics rather than on his private life or his legal creativity per se. Though the book is fun to read even for the cognoscenti, those with deeper understanding of how Marshall bent legal raw material to his sophisticated intellect will quickly appreciate that there is more to Marshall than Brookhiser can provide in this overview. He does quote an alleged avowal of Jefferson, “When conversing with Marshall, I never admit anything. So sure as you admit any position to be good, no matter how remote from the conclusion he seeks to establish, you are gone.” But Brookhiser passes on a similar outburst from John Randolph about one of Marshall’s opinions: “Wrong, all wrong, but no man in the United States can tell why or wherein.”
Still, I felt comfortable in Brookhiser’s hands. Except for Marshall’s blindness to the combined injustice of slavery and its political threat to the Constitution that he was defending, the conservative Brookhiser sympathizes with Marshall’s views throughout, especially about the necessity of government to defend private property. And I sympathize with Brookhiser, especially in his antagonism to Thomas Jefferson, who “schemes, whines, and behaves unethically” (271) throughout the book. (I’d wager this book has the most negative view of Jefferson of any written in the 21st century—among those that never mention Sally Hemings.)
February 5, 2019
I picked up Richard Bookhiser’s John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court (New York: Basic Books, 2018), 277+ pp. mostly to find out how one man could make the judicial branch coequal with the legislative and executive branches. Turns out it was only partly because of the force, cogency, and gravitas of his reasoning, though he was indeed an intellectual force to be reckoned with.
Just as important were his outgoing and engaging personality, his bon homme conviviality—he personally wined and dined his associate justices daily while Court was in session during his entire tenure as chief justice—and his eagerness to find common ground with people holding different political views (so most people liked him personally even when they disagreed with his politics). Considering he was the sole Federalist in major public office for two decades after his party disappeared from the national scene, this approach was essential for his political survival. It also made it possible for him to persuade the Court to speak with one voice: Many of the opinions he wrote were unanimous or at least without dissenting opinions.
I was also reminded just how dirty the politics were in the early decades of our nation. Mitch McConnell’s refusal to even hold hearings on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee? Nothing new. Jefferson even tried impeaching every member of the Court just so he could replace them with Republicans.
And I learned that I am more interested in the rules of Nature than in the political rules enshrined in the Constitution. My mother expected I would become a lawyer. Glad I didn’t.
Just as important were his outgoing and engaging personality, his bon homme conviviality—he personally wined and dined his associate justices daily while Court was in session during his entire tenure as chief justice—and his eagerness to find common ground with people holding different political views (so most people liked him personally even when they disagreed with his politics). Considering he was the sole Federalist in major public office for two decades after his party disappeared from the national scene, this approach was essential for his political survival. It also made it possible for him to persuade the Court to speak with one voice: Many of the opinions he wrote were unanimous or at least without dissenting opinions.
I was also reminded just how dirty the politics were in the early decades of our nation. Mitch McConnell’s refusal to even hold hearings on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee? Nothing new. Jefferson even tried impeaching every member of the Court just so he could replace them with Republicans.
And I learned that I am more interested in the rules of Nature than in the political rules enshrined in the Constitution. My mother expected I would become a lawyer. Glad I didn’t.
August 26, 2024
A Founding Father, a Revolutionary fighter, a lawyer, a VA politician, a national politician, a disciple of Washington, Secretary of State under President John Adams until Adams nominated him to the Supreme Court where Marshall served for 34 years!
This may look like a man who seems distant and hard to understand, a man who is more marble than flesh, more imaginary than relatable. But that is NOT the case with Justice Marshall. Author Richard Brookhiser has brought to life Chief Justice John Marshall in a way that makes him seem understandable, real, relatable. Here was a man who loved his family dearly, who even hated some family with a passion (ahem...second cousin Thomas Jefferson), who loved nothing more than to hang out with his friends, drink and play games all while b.s.ing and enjoying the time as it went by. He was bright, loved to read and write, and could cajole many into seeing his way of thinking...which may be why he had so many unanimous decisions.
While not a traditional biography, Mr. Brookhiser has written a biography as seen through the major decisions that he and his courts ruled upon. I have not seen biography like this before and was taken aback initially, but grew to love the history behind the cases, what stage Marshall was in in his life and the doings of his family and such, and ultimately the case and the decisions that he and the courts made on them.
So good, so original, so readable and so relatable. Highly recommended to readers of history, lovers of the revolutionary times, or those interested in the Supreme Court and its history. An easy four stars.
This may look like a man who seems distant and hard to understand, a man who is more marble than flesh, more imaginary than relatable. But that is NOT the case with Justice Marshall. Author Richard Brookhiser has brought to life Chief Justice John Marshall in a way that makes him seem understandable, real, relatable. Here was a man who loved his family dearly, who even hated some family with a passion (ahem...second cousin Thomas Jefferson), who loved nothing more than to hang out with his friends, drink and play games all while b.s.ing and enjoying the time as it went by. He was bright, loved to read and write, and could cajole many into seeing his way of thinking...which may be why he had so many unanimous decisions.
While not a traditional biography, Mr. Brookhiser has written a biography as seen through the major decisions that he and his courts ruled upon. I have not seen biography like this before and was taken aback initially, but grew to love the history behind the cases, what stage Marshall was in in his life and the doings of his family and such, and ultimately the case and the decisions that he and the courts made on them.
So good, so original, so readable and so relatable. Highly recommended to readers of history, lovers of the revolutionary times, or those interested in the Supreme Court and its history. An easy four stars.
February 2, 2021
Richard Brookhiser never mentions Donald Trump in his biography, John Marshall/The Man Who Made the Supreme Court. But even a superficial read of this 300-plus page book begs parallels. Marshall battled two populist presidents, Jefferson and Jackson, and in doing so established the court not only as the legitimate third leg of American government, but also as an equally important and independent leg. For example, Marshall, closely allied with both Washington and Hamilton, faced Jefferson's attempt to sway the court by appointing Republican justices. The chief justice fought back with powers of persuasion with his fellow justices and his vision that the court should speak with one voice. Brookhiser's biography is more an analysis of the major cases the Marshall court decided than a detailed description of his life (the high points of his life are certainly noted) told in many cases through the decisions Marshall wrote. Like Trump, John Roberts is not mentioned in the book, but it’s hard to fathom a day that goes by when the current chief justice doesn't feel Marshall’s presence and envy the day his court could speak, like Marshall's, with one voice on the major issues it is asked to decide.
August 26, 2020
Good, not great.
As I read this book I found myself wondering what it really was and who was the intended audience. It doesn't truly feel like a biography of John Marshall, the man. I'd call it more a primer on the early development of the Supreme Court. Snippets of his life and times are covered, sure. At under 300 pages, it feels like this single volume can't decide if it's about John Marshall or the Marshall Court, skimming the surface of both while failing to properly treat either.
Marshall was a soldier, a delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention, a diplomat, a cabinet officer, and a jurist. The audience for his biography is wide. Perhaps a brief treatment is desirable for some of that population but I felt it rushed and lacking in detail. Ultimately, it brought more perspective on the events of the revolution and the first half-century of our government. My chief complaint, its brevity, probably saves it in my esteem.
Is it worth the time? Move on if you're looking for depth. If you want a quick jaunt through a remarkable time as lived by a remarkable man, dig in.
As I read this book I found myself wondering what it really was and who was the intended audience. It doesn't truly feel like a biography of John Marshall, the man. I'd call it more a primer on the early development of the Supreme Court. Snippets of his life and times are covered, sure. At under 300 pages, it feels like this single volume can't decide if it's about John Marshall or the Marshall Court, skimming the surface of both while failing to properly treat either.
Marshall was a soldier, a delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention, a diplomat, a cabinet officer, and a jurist. The audience for his biography is wide. Perhaps a brief treatment is desirable for some of that population but I felt it rushed and lacking in detail. Ultimately, it brought more perspective on the events of the revolution and the first half-century of our government. My chief complaint, its brevity, probably saves it in my esteem.
Is it worth the time? Move on if you're looking for depth. If you want a quick jaunt through a remarkable time as lived by a remarkable man, dig in.
October 18, 2024
Well done biography of John Marshall, the fourth (and most consequential and longest-serving) Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
As Brookhiser points out, SCOTUS was basically an afterthought in the federal government by the time Marshall ascended to the bench. It did not have anything resembling the prestige or power that it has today. Beginning with Marshall’s monumental opinion in Marbury v. Madison, that began to change.
While Marshall was able to win over an ever-changing list of colleagues at SCOTUS, he faced some big-name opposition in the forms of Thomas Jefferson (his cousin) and Andrew Jackson. But at all times, Marshall’s goal was to defend the Constitution and, secondarily, the legitimacy of the Court itself.
Brookhiser does a great job providing the background of the landmark cases that came before the Marshall Court and briefly summarizing the outcome and fallout of each one. Although this book is about a Chief Justice and legal battles, don’t have to be a lawyer to understand what happened in these cases and why the cases were significant.
As Brookhiser points out, SCOTUS was basically an afterthought in the federal government by the time Marshall ascended to the bench. It did not have anything resembling the prestige or power that it has today. Beginning with Marshall’s monumental opinion in Marbury v. Madison, that began to change.
While Marshall was able to win over an ever-changing list of colleagues at SCOTUS, he faced some big-name opposition in the forms of Thomas Jefferson (his cousin) and Andrew Jackson. But at all times, Marshall’s goal was to defend the Constitution and, secondarily, the legitimacy of the Court itself.
Brookhiser does a great job providing the background of the landmark cases that came before the Marshall Court and briefly summarizing the outcome and fallout of each one. Although this book is about a Chief Justice and legal battles, don’t have to be a lawyer to understand what happened in these cases and why the cases were significant.
January 2, 2019
As Brookhiser admits early in this unremarkable biography, John Marshall left only limited writings relative to some of his more famous founding father peers. The result is a biography that is swift, but doesn't really bring the man to life. Rather than revealing many personal details, Brookhiser focuses instead on the court cases, Marshall's ability to command majorities despite his many Republican co-justices, and his ability to write opinions that deliver his view of the law even when the outcome on the substance seems like an offering to those who disagree with him on the law. Accordingly, at times, this biography reads like a simplified first year law school con law class. Also, Brookhiser spends most of the concluding summary chapter discussing Dred Scott and its implications/reception--a decision made after Marshall died and in which he did not participate (which therefore has the feel of padding to give this biography weight).
February 3, 2019
Richard Brookhiser’s new biography on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall is an excellent, clean, straight forward biography of one of the Court’s most important justices. Brookhiser follows Marshall from birth to death and spends most of the book focusing on about 20 important Supreme Court cases, including Marbury v Madison and cases on commerce, slave holding, contracts, banking, Native Americans and other topics where the decisions then still impact our lives today. Brookhiser also tells us about Federalists v Republicans, his dislike of Thomas Jefferson and his adoration of George Washington. During his 34 years as Chief Justice, Marshall established a culture and process of how the Court would act. Brookhiser tells a good story and provides lots of readable detail about jurisprudence in post-Constitution America. But most of all he tells us that Marshall always interpreted the Constitution as a document of the people, not a compact among states.
February 12, 2019
The major reason I liked this book is that it gave insight into a significant historical figure who doesn't get much space in the average American history book. There are a number of such men; Albert Gallatin and John Jay come quickly to mind, and there are others. To read an entire book about one of them is to fill in some of the important spaces among the well-known giants like Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton. That said, it pains me (I like other Brookhiser work) to say that I was less happy with the writing. All too often I had to reread paragraphs to try to follow Brookhiser's explication of the various cases and political relationships; he sacrificed clarity for brevity, and occasionally I just had to give up on what his (or Marshall's) point really was. Some editing (and in at least one case, just proofreading) would have made this a lot easier read. There are a few other Marshall biographies; perhaps one of them would be better.
April 8, 2019
This is almost not a biography. Cursory look at early and personal life; strong focus on Marshall's written opinions concerning a handful of important cases from his long tenure as Chief Justice of the United States. I would probably have preferred brief discussions of more cases (or perhaps simply a longer book?), but Brookhiser does a good job of setting up the cases he discusses (each chapter can practically stand on its own). Could have done more to discuss Marshall's legacy and the importance of the cases he discussed. In sum, this is a good introduction to Marshall's career. Brookhiser's prose is impeccable, even if the content left me wanting more.
April 10, 2019
Marshall’s life, up until he was elevated to the Court, is lively and interesting, and author Richard Brookhiser does a masterful job of showing the forces that shaped his philosophy. Marshall was, all his long life, an acolyte of George Washington, under whom he served in the Revolutionary War. After the war, he lived a public-spirited life as a Virginia lawyer, serving on the state’s Constitutional ratification convention and in Congress --- and, not incidentally, engaging in a robust social life.
Read the rest of the review at Bookreporter.com - https://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/...
Read the rest of the review at Bookreporter.com - https://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/...
November 25, 2019
Richard Bookhiser’s biography of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall is an unsatisfying read. Cases are examined but the cumulative import is vague. Marshall’s Federalist roots imbued his legal reasoning all but driving Jefferson to distraction. His Marbury v Madison decision established an extra-constitutional role of the court as final arbiter of constitutionality. But not all the authors of the constitution (see Madison) envisioned that role. The treason trial of Aaron Burr presided over by Marshall seems in retrospect a travesty of justice. Burr was guilty. The limits of an unelected court are not examined in full and should have been.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews