John Marshall: Definer of a Nation

by Jean Edward Smith

A New York Times Notable Book of 1996

It was in tolling the death of Chief Justice John Marshall in 1835 that the Liberty Bell cracked, never to ring again. An apt symbol of the man who shaped both court and country.

Working from primary sources, Jean Edward Smith has drawn an elegant portrait of a remarkable man. Lawyer, jurist, scholars; soldier, comrade, friend; and, most especially, lover of fine Madeira, good food, and animated table talk: the Marshall who emerges from these pages is noteworthy for his very human qualities as for his piercing intellect, and, perhaps most extraordinary, for his talents as a leader of men and a molder of consensus. A man of many parts, a true son of the Enlightenment, John Marshall did much for his country, and John Marshall: Definer of a Nation demonstrates this on every page.

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

736 pages, Paperback

First published November 15, 1996

About the author

Jean Edward Smith was the John Marshall Professor of Political Science at Marshall University and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto after having served as professor of political economy there for thirty-five years. Smith also served as professor of history and government at Ashland University.

A graduate of McKinley High School in Washington, D.C., Smith received an A.B. from Princeton University in 1954. While attending Princeton, Smith was mentored under law professor and political scientist William M. Beaney. Professor Beaney's American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays & Selected Cases, became a standard text and was widely used in university constitutional law classes for several years. Serving in the military from 1954-1961, he rose from the rank of Second Lieutenant to Captain (RA) US Army (Artillery). Smith served in West Berlin and Dachau, Germany. In 1964, he obtained a Ph.D. from the Department of Public Law and Government of Columbia University. Smith began his teaching career as assistant professor of government at Dartmouth College, a post he held from 1963 until 1965. He then became a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto in 1965 until his retirement in 1999. Professor Smith also served as visiting professor at several universities during his tenure at the University of Toronto and after his retirement including the Freie Universität in Berlin, Georgetown University[2], the University of Virginia’s Woodrow Wilson Department of Government and Foreign Affairs, and the University of California at San Diego.

Reviews

[Manray9 · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Constitution of the United States was not born fully-formed and mature. All three branches of the federal government grew into their respective responsibilities and proper roles. In 1788 Alexander Hamilton wrote that “the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three branches.” This was undeniably true. The people of the United States owe a great debt to John Marshall for transforming the wobbly leg of the Constitutional stool into one that effectively checked executive and legislative powers and fostered the rule of law. Jean Edward Smith, with another excellent political biography, reveals the depth of that debt.

John Marshall was not our first Chief Justice, but he was the most significant. He took over a Supreme Court with no authority and little prestige. The court's decisions under his guidance cemented its role as a separate and equal branch of the U.S. government. The decisions were groundbreaking. In Marbury v. Madison the Marshall Court established the principle of judicial review – creating the basis for the Supreme Court's role as arbiter of the Constitution; McCullough v. Maryland authenticated the implied powers of Congress and confirmed the supremacy of federal actions under the Constitution; in Cohens v. Virginia the court refuted the compact theory of states' rights and cut the ground from under secessionist legal arguments decades before the Civil War; and with Dartmouth College v. Woodward it upheld the sanctity of contracts thereby strengthening free enterprise throughout the Union. These decisions made the court a powerful bulwark in the drive for national unity. When Marshall assumed the bench, the Supreme Court's role in America was ambiguous. When he died, still sitting as Chief Justice in 1835, that role was indelibly impressed into the fabric of American life. The Marshall Court sat in an era of contentious partisanship, but did so fairly, thoughtfully, articulately, and judiciously. Perhaps its greatest legacy was in drawing a stark line between the law and politics. Marshall knew politics – and kept his court out of them.

As with all of Jean Edward Smith's biographies, John Marshall: Definer of a Nation immerses the reader in the life and times of his subject, and does so in a manner scholarly and comprehensive (524 pages of text, 151 pages of Smith's typically illustrative footnotes, and 30 pages of bibliography), yet also entertaining. While most of the book is devoted to Marshall's career as Chief Justice, Smith does not neglect his combat experiences as a soldier during the Revolution, his years as the most prominent and successful lawyer in Virginia, a term as a Federalist member of the U.S. Congress, his exemplary performance as a peace commissioner in France during the notorious XYZ Affair, as well as service as Secretary of State under John Adams, and authorship of a five volume biography of George Washington. Any reader with interest in the early days of the American republic and the shaping of our government and institutions need look no further than John Marshall: Definer of a Nation. Jean Edward Smith earned Five Stars from me.

[Aaron Million · Rating 5 out of 5]

Moderate. Compromise. Those are the two words that I come away with the most to describe John Marshall, the first really influential Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Marshall was actually the third Chief Justice, but he was the one who profoundly shaped and defined the scope and nature of the Supreme Court. Appointed by President John Adams in 1801 as he was about to leave the office, Marshall stayed until he died in the summer of 1835.

But before being elevated to the highest perch on the highest bench, Marshall was already a well-known political figure with some serious accomplishments to his resume. Indeed, half of Jean Edward Smith's biography takes place prior to Marshall's time as Chief Justice. A cousin of Thomas Jefferson, Marshall had the typical higher class Virginia upbringing of the 18th century. While not among the most elite Virginia families, Marshall had a comfortable childhood, and then set out for a career as a lawyer. However, he enlisted in the Virginia militia during the Revolutionary War and served in battle with two future Presidents (and fellow Virginians), George Washington and James Monroe. Marshall was recognized quickly for his integrity and willingness to bring people together instead of dividing them.

Following the war, he built a successful law practice in Richmond and then began to dabble in Virginia politics. Marshall's growing reputation for structured, logical thinking and a willingness to work both sides of the political aisle to seek solutions brought him into the Virginia House of Delegates, and later as a delegate to Virginia's convention concerning ratification of the Constitution. Marshall was a Federalist, and while a moderate one, that brought him the enmity of Republicans such as Thomas Jefferson. The two also had an intense personal dislike of each other which lasted until Jefferson's death. Smith attempts to analyze why the dislike was so intense on each side, noting that Jefferson was pretty much the exception that Marshall made in his effort to get along well with his political opponents on a personal level. In the absence of nothing direct from either man explaining why the visceral dislike of the other, Smith can only speculate that it was part political, but mostly personal for some unknown reason.

Marshall was very pro-Constitution and nationalist in his sentiments, which made him somewhat of a political oddball in heavily Republican Virginia. Nonetheless, his personal popularity and relationships with titans such as Patrick Henry helped his cause, and he played a pivotal role in getting Virginia to vote to ratify the Constitution. After declining several chances for appointive office from Washington, Marshall was convinced to serve as one of the ministers that Adams sent to France in an attempt to negotiate a treaty to avoid war in 1798. Marshall subsequently shot to national fame as part of his role in thwarting the devious and greedy French Foreign Minister Talleyrand, in what came to be known as the XYZ Affair. In short, Marshall refused to be bribed. His strong performance in France led directly to Adams later naming him Secretary of State, and then less than a year later, nominating him for Chief Justice.

The last half of the book is devoted to Marshall's long tenure on the Court, and how he helped to mold the Court into a coequal branch of government. When he first donned his black robe, the role of the Supreme Court was largely undefined, as the Founders had originally given it the least attention by far of the three branches. It did not even have a permanent place to meet, with space needing to be found for it in a room in the Capitol basement. Marshall, despite withering criticism and attacks from Jefferson and his followers, slowly made the Court into the interpreter of the Constitution and whether or not laws and acts were considered to be constitutional or not. As often as he could - which was quite often - Marshall tried to give something to both sides. This is evident as early as the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison where Marshall was able to provide a win for both sides to walk away with. He did this time and time again, taking due care not to make an effort to become a runaway court that made decisions based on personal prejudices or partisan considerations.

Almost just as important, Marshall took great care to see that - as much as possible - the Court spoke with one voice. Most of his terms saw almost no dissents; almost all decisions were unanimous. This did break down in the last few years of his tenure, but when you look at his body of work and look at how few cases resulted in dissents, it is remarkable. And in today's high polarized Court, it is almost impossible to fathom. And if you think well that's probably because people weren't as divided and angry back in Marshall's day as they are today, you would be wrong because there was lots of anger and no shortage of division. That Marshall could weave several men, from different geographic regions and appointed by different Presidents and holding their own individual judicial philosophies, together like he did speaks to his skills as a conciliator and someone who took a personal, vested interest in the other justices. Smith paints Marshall as a shepherd constantly tending to his flock, who constantly strove to make the Court a non-partisan organ where anyone who came before it had the opportunity to argue their case to open-minded judges. That doesn't mean that Marshall did not have his own preconceived notions, but he attempted to give everyone something if at all possible.

Smith does not ignore Marshall's personal life. Unfortunately, he is somewhat hampered by the fact that Marshall kept no copies of any of his own letters, and did not save letters that others sent to him. Therefore, much more that we could know about Marshall is lost to history. But many of his letters did remain, from people who kept the ones that he sent them, and those who made copies of ones that they wrote to him. Marshall was very devoted to his sickly wife Polly, who ended up being a recluse and semi-invalid for almost all of their marriage. She did not one time accompany him to D.C. for a court session (in Marshall's time the Court was in session for about six weeks per year, later moved up to eight by the time of Marshall's death). I would have liked to have known a bit more about what happened to all of Marshall's children after his death, but Smith pretty much breezes past that.

Smith writes a lot about Marshall's relationship with James Monroe, but fails to note Monroe's death and what Marshall thought about it. Perhaps this is due to the letter issue cited above, but still I would have preferred to at least have seen it mentioned. Around the time of Monroe's death (summer 1831), Marshall himself was sick with gallstones. He actually traveled to Philadelphia to have surgery done to remove the stones. Can you imagine that? There was no anesthesia back then. No sanitation. No talk of germs. Marshall was 76 by then, which was ancient back in that time period. That would be a serious, dangerous operation for even a young, healthy man to undergo, let alone an old one. Smith has copious footnotes and end notes in this book, which themselves are worth reading. One of his citations concerning Marshall's surgery says this: "It makes for gruesome reading, and I have decided against quoting it." Mr. Smith, thank you!

Marshall's relationship with Andrew Jackson is also covered, and surprisingly the two seemed to get along and respect each other a great deal. While not in agreement politically, Marshall very much respected Jackson's Supreme Court appointments, as well as his strong stand against South Carolina in the nullification crisis of 1832. And for his part, Jackson recognized Marshall's integrity and willingness to preside over the Court in a non-partisan manner. I came away thinking that perhaps history has embellished any discord that there may have been between the two men. Jackson did not suffer fools, and the fact that he had Marshall to dinner at the White House multiple times tells me that they, at least personally, got along just fine.

As with other works of Smith that I have read, this is well-written and it is clear that Smith did his research and knew how to write in an informative and engaging style. The one thing that I do dislike about Smith's books is that he writes chapters with no breaks or subsections in them. As a reader, I dislike that as it makes it more difficult to digest an entire chapter at once, and oftentimes I do not have enough time to read 25-40 pages in one single sitting. While I do think that Smith is overall favorable to Marshall, he does not come across as biased. And when viewing Marshall through the lens of his own time period, rife with extreme partisans and people wanting to defang the nascent government in favor of states rights, Marshall comes out looking pretty good. Smith does not shy away from being critical where he believes it is due, and Marshall had faults like the rest of us have. But he makes a convincing case for Marshall's importance to the young nation and in helping to establish our system of governance and see that it functioned properly. When one views how important the Supreme Court is today, one has to recognize Marshall's importance and contribution to American history. What Marshall would think of most of today's Justices and how they behave, is of course unknown, but I have a difficult time seeing him approve.

Grade: A-

[Frank Theising · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is five stars if for no other reason that I learned a ton. Chief Justice Marshall is largely overshadowed by Washington, Jefferson, and other founding fathers in our popular consciousness, but he is arguably one of the most important men in world history and the influence of his legal decisions on US and world affairs is so widespread it is difficult to quantify.

John Marshall was out nation’s 4th Chief Justice. His 35 year tenure spanned five presidents. Marshal was conservative and an ardent nationalist. His selection was not calculated or planned but a last second appointment by lame duck John Adams. Under his leadership, the Supreme Court became a dominant force in American life: establishing judicial independence, shaping the legal environment conducive to the growth of the American economy, and establishing the ground rules of American government. If Washington founded the country, Marshall defined it. Under his leadership, the Court initiated the practice of giving a single Court opinion that gave decisions an aura of finality.

The first 3 Chief Justices rotated through quickly and the Court’s authority was vague. The Marshall Court’s major decisions on the other hand established Judicial Review (Marbury v Madison), implied powers (McCulloch v Maryland), jurisdiction over state courts, and the sanctity of contractual arrangements (Dartmouth College). Above all, he asserted the authority of the Court to interpret the Constitution. In large part the prosperity and cohesion of the Union derived in large part from his leadership and legal opinions.

What follows are my notes on the book:

Marshall was born in 1755 in lightly settled Fauquier County, VA. His father Thomas became the county’s first magistrate and was elected to the House of Burgesses. Lord Fairfax became an important patron of the Marshalls, increasing their social standing. Despite the rural setting, Thomas maintained a library, with many books borrowed from Fairfax. After initial study at home, John was sent to a Reverend Campbell’s academy, alongside classmate James Monroe. John never rejected Christianity openly, but his skepticism of the divinity of Christ prevented him from ever joining a Church.

As news of Lexington and Concord spread, Fauquier County militia began drills. 19-year old Marshall was appointed their Lieutenant. He received his baptism by fire in the battle at Great Bridge. He helped repel a direct assault by the British, who then retreated abandoning the Tory stronghold of Norfolk. Sadly, the patriots burned down the city. In summer 1776, the militia was demobilized and Marshall enlisted in a new company raised to join Washington’s Army. Marshall was handpicked by Lafayette for an elite unit to screen and harass Howe’s advance. Marshall was engaged in the fight all day long at Brandywine. At Germantown, Marshall assumed command of the company and was wounded in in the hand while leading an assault. The hard days ahead at Valley Forge helped forge his character. After the battle at Monmouth, he was promoted to Captain. He served 5 years in the war.

His military renown bridged the gap with a leading tidewater family of the Amblers. He was smitten with their daughter Mary, nicknamed Polly. Using his militia pay, he purchased 4K acres in Kentucky. When the VA legislature failed to form new companies for the army, he was unemployed and began to study law under George Wythe at the College of William and Mary. He excelled under Wythe’s instruction, moot courts, and mock legislatures that offered practical experience. After his admission to the bar, on his own initiative he set out on foot to rejoin the Continental Army in PA. When the VA legislature finally authorized new units, Marshall helped recruit them.

Without a command, Marshall resigned and ran for a seat in the VA legislature in 1782. Six months later he was elected to the Council of State (governor’s Privy Council), greatly improving his poor financial situation. He married Polly in 1783. In 1784 he resigned and by 1786 he finally established a thriving legal practice in Richmond and his financial situation improved dramatically. In Richmond, he served as a magistrate in the court for 3 years. Marshal’s political principles had crystalized by this time: 1) supported a strong central government, 2) the supremacy of the Constitution, 3) an independent judiciary, and 4) unalienable right to property (and by extension the sanctity of contracts). At the state government level he defended these principles. He viewed Shay’s Rebellion with dismay and ran again for the House of Delegates just in time to debate the new US Constitution. Marshall’s speech in defense of the Constitution lacked the emotional appeals but were full of well crafted, rigorous arguments that appealed to many. His precise knowledge of legal procedure meant he played a particularly key role in the debate over Article III on the judiciary, rebutting arguments presented by Henry and Mason. His arguments helped tip the balance in favor of ratification.

After ratification, Marshall retired. He turned down multiple appointments by President Washington, including US attorney for VA and later Attorney General). He was focused on his profitable legal practice and desire to purchase a substantial portion of the Fairfax estate. In Virginia, Marshall served as a proxy for Washington/Hamilton and his old friend Monroe promoted Jefferson’s cause. The two published an exchange of essays that cemented the former friends as bitter opponents. As Washington sought neutrality, war with either UK or France became a real possibility. In 1793, VA elected Marshall as a brigadier general and he was given command of a brigade in the VA militia. To avert war, Washington sent Pinckney, Gerry, and Marshall as an envoy to France. Marshall used this as an opportunity to secure a loan in Amsterdam to finance his purchase of the Fairfax estate.

Their French foreign minister Talleyrand functioned as gatekeeper and treated the delegation with condescension and insisted on a substantial bribe before negotiations commenced. France was used to getting its way bullying neutral European states and he was nonplussed by the American’s principled refusal. Marshall’s dispatches back to President Adams (with names coded X Y and Z) were released greatly damaging French-leaning republicans in Congress and rejuvenated the Federalists. When news of the XYZ affair made it back to Paris, Talleyrand was hard pressed to explain his behavior and dropped their demands for a bribe and stopped making an issue of the Jay Treaty. Upon his return, Marshall became an instant celebrity.

Alone among Federalists, Marshall watched the passing of the alien and sedition acts with great concern and recognized it as a way to stifle debate and criticism that would only give Republicans popular support. In desperate need of good candidates, Washington coerced Marshall into running for a House seat. He relented, and because he distanced himself from the alien and sedition acts, prevailed. In Congress, Marshall defended President Adams from partisan attacks and become an effective spokesman for the administration. Though he did break with the Federalists on occasion, including a vote to repeal the alien and sedition acts. He was quickly becoming a leader of the moderate wing of the Federalists.

Without consulting Marshall, Adams nominated him for Secretary of War and then almost immediately nominated him as Secretary of State. Marshall eventually accepted the position at State. The government was moving from Philly to the swamp of DC. The issues facing the country included the quasi war with France, deteriorating relations with the UK, and rise of the Barbary Pirates. The Republicans defeated Adams (TBD whether Jefferson or Burr was to be president) and lame duck Adams appointed 45 year old Marshall to fill a new vacancy for Chief Justice. He would serve in this role for next 35 years.

He was the first chief justice to preside in DC. When he assumed the role, the court had little to no prestige (there were not even plans for courthouse in the new capitol). It would meet in a room in the capitol building. The first three chiefs (Jay, Cushing, Ellsworth) revolved though without any impact. It was a court of law, not a constitutional court. Marshall’s first task was to remove the court from partisan politics and restore its authority. Marshall brought the justices together to lodge under one roof when the court was in session helping to build cohesion and camaraderie in the court. Marshall’s leadership was evident as for the first time major decisions were delivered singular, unanimous “Opinion of the Court” decisions conferring greater legitimacy and authority to their rulings.

Jefferson and the republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, forcing the Supreme Court justices to resume circuit work. The mother of all Constitutional landmark cases Marbury v Madison stemmed directly from Adam’s “midnight appointment” of judges. Marbury demanded a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to give him his signed but undelivered commission as a justice. Despite Marshal’s efforts to extricate the Court from partisan politics, this case put Marshall and Jefferson on a collision course. The court was in a no-win situation. If it issued the writ, Madison would ignore it, undermining the court’s authority. If it denied it, the Court would be viewed as a paper tiger, backing down. The eventual decision confirmed that Marbury was fully entitled to his commission and Madison’s refusal was a violation of his clear rights. But Marshall went on to declare the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, meaning the court was not in a position to compel Madison to act. This was the first case in which an act of the legislature was deemed void because it was opposed to the clear wording of the Constitution. In this judicial tour de force, Marshall split the proverbial baby. The High federalists were told Marbury was entitled to his commission, but the Republicans gained a victory with the case’s dismissal.

Over the next 5 years while presiding as Chief Justice, he collaborated with Justice Bushrod Washington to write a 5-volume biography of George Washington. Jefferson assumed this was a partisan gambit to influence the 1804 election. Madison didn’t realize it, but Jefferson was waging a battle to rein in the radicals from his own party. When the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase came before the Court in 1828, Marshall ruled that the acquisition was constitutional under Congress’ authority to make treaties.

As justices retired or passed away, Jefferson had an opportunity to influence the makeup of the court. Fortunately he (and later Madison and Jackson) would all appoint qualified, moderate justices who carried on Marshall’s tradition). Occasionally, partisan politics led to attacks on the court (the impeachment of Justice Chase) were confronted and defeated.

In the famous treason trial of Aaron Burr, Burr was acquitted by the court, further infuriating Jefferson. With Madison’s ascension to the presidency, the partisan squabbles simmered down. Marshall had won his war for an independent judiciary. Jefferson’s embargo triggered a wave a resentment against the national government with northern states threatening nullification. In United States v Peters Marshall asserted the supremacy of the federal government over state laws. When Madison refused to help the states, the matter was ended. In the 1810 case Fletcher v Peck the court would assert the right to strike down state laws repugnant to the Constitution. Madison’s appointment of professionals instead of partisans helped solidify the court as a band of brothers (2 moderate Federalists, 5 moderate Republicans) that delivered many great constitutional decisions over the next 11 years from 1812-1823.

Cases like Schooner Exchange v McFaddon contesting foreign prizes captured at sea had foreign policy implications that threatened to throw the court back into partisan politics. His ruling (separating legal issues from international political obligations) established a fundamental principle of international law, namely sovereign immunity (i.e. personal property rights must sometimes yield to foreign policy imperatives). For a brief period in 1812, the Federalist flirted with nominating Marshall as a peace candidate for president. During the war, Marshall helped prepare and drill soldiers for the defense of Richmond, which never was attacked. The 1814 term saw a slew of cases arising from war issues (prize law, rules of belligerency, trade with an enemy, etc). The Supreme Court offices in the capitol were burned when the British sacked DC.

In 1816, Virginia again challenged the authority of the court in Martin v Hunter’s Lessee. A basic title dispute had now become a case where VA challenged the appellate authority of the Supreme Court to overrule their decisions. Arguing that the Court derived its power from the people, not the states the Court again ruled its authority constitutional. 1819 saw a number of significant cases. In Dartmouth College v Woodward the court ruled the college charter was considered a contract and thereby protected from political interference by the state of NH. In McCullough v Maryland the Court ruled that MD could not tax the Bank of the US as it was created by federal law and the power to tax is the power to destroy and challenge federal laws. The Missouri question overshadowed the term of 1820. The rise in partisan sentiment over the issue saw Jefferson and others again renew attacks on the independent judiciary.

In the 1824 case Gibbons v Ogden, the Marshall Court ruled that the Congress’s powers to regulate commerce overrode state laws that clashed (in this case NY’s attempt to exclude steamboats of other states from its waters. This case would help knit the entire country together economically. Steamboat traffic exploded nearly overnight and contributed to the growth of national power.

Slavery never came before the Marshall Court, but he personally thought the malignant effects and fanaticism on both sides of the issue were cause for concern. Marshall believed colonization (relocating freed slaves to Africa) would be the most effective solution. Privately Marshall opposed Jackson but made efforts to avoid any public partisan comments against him. To his surprise, Jackson appointed moderate Whig John McLean to the bench. At 74, he served again on VA’s constitutional convention.

After 29 years of keeping the court nearly unanimous, the court slowly began to splinter. In 1830, the South began advocating nullification. In 1831, his health was failing and he had a lithotomy to remove stones from his bladder (without anesthetic). He rebounded surprisingly quickly. Later that year he was grief-stricken as Polly died. In 1832, the court heard Cherokee Nation v Georgia and though he was sympathetic to the Indian’s plight ruled they were not in fact a foreign nation and therefore did not have standing to bring the case to the Supreme Court. Yet when missionaries who had standing sued, the Court declared Georgia’s laws against the Cherokee unconstitutional. Sadly, Georgia largely ignored the decision and was at risk of joining SC in nullification. Miraculously, it was Jackson who squashed the nullification talk. Marshall was delighted and became his warmest supporter. Marshall died in 1835. The Liberty Bell (allegedly) cracked while tolling the death of the great Chief justice.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a definitive biography of the country's first important chief justice of the Supreme Court (with apologies to John Jay--the first). Marshall transformed the Court from an equivocal position among the three branches of government to a coequal branch, as per the Founding Fathers' preference.

The book makes several contributions: (a) it provides a good depiction of Marshall the person; (b) it gives the reader a sense of his effect on the American governmental system through his influence on the Supreme Court. A few words about each.

John Marshall as a person is an important issue, since, in some ways, it affected his performance as Chief Justice. He was an affable person. Less politicized than others in the Federalist political camp. By the mid-1790s, the country had begun to develop its political party system in a rather primitive way. The Federalists--the party of President George Washington (who despised the concept of political party) and of those who desired an energetic national government. Then, the Democrat-Republicans--the party of Jefferson and Madison, desiring a less powerful national government. Marshall was a Federalist, but not of the fire-breathing variety. He was more an accommodationist. One point: He and Jefferson were related but had a healthy dislike for one another. The volume does a very good job depicting Marshall as a person. And this was not unrelated to his performance as Chief Justice.

The book also does a fine job of describing his jurisprudence. It covers his role in such major cases as Marbury v. Madison, Ogden v. Gibbons, the Dartmouth case, McCulloch v. Maryland and so on. His impact on constitutional law is immense and the book details this nicely,

There is also tidbits about his self perception. Late in his career, he noted of himself: "Non sum qualis ernam" (if my memory is accurate)--"I am no longer who I was." I find the passage powerful in that it shows his understanding of where he was as opposed to where he had been in his powers, acuity, and so on.

All in all, a masterful biography of a major figure in American history.

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you have any interest in the early years of our nation and how it was formed, this is a must read.
This is also a biography of John Marshall, which fits hand in glove with how he was involved in the Revolutionary War, was involved in the formation of the constitution, and how his knowledge of the constitution and the division of responsibilities served him as our Chief Justice.

They talk about the tightrope that the Supreme Court walked since the constitution does not spell out exactly how the Supreme Court will operate - and John Marshall carved out the courts place in the USA. I know that some people today agree with Thomas Jefferson who worked hard to reduce the influence of the court. Did you know the blood connection between the 2 men? And which of these 2 men would be more lively at a dinner party?

I have an interest in the Supreme court and am interested in other books that you can recommend on the current courts. I read The Bretheran! Maybe more scholarly.

[Janelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

After reading this John Marshall may be my new favorite founding father. The man who shaped the Supreme Court was in turn shaped by his upbringing in the foothills of Shenandoah and his service in the Revolution. His devotion to his country and family was remarkable as well as the skill with which he got his fellow justices to work together despite differences in judicial opinion. As the title states, he did a lot to define the nation and he did so with the utmost sense of duty and integrity. The descriptions of him in his rumpled and simple clothing while loving a good party contrast with the gravity of duty he felt toward the bench. Aside from highlighting a somewhat forgotten founder, the book also provided great detail on how the country was shaped, what sentiment was really like at the times, and how things initially worked. Great read for history and biography lovers.

[Jeremy Perron · Rating 5 out of 5]

When President John Adams utter the words "I believe I must nominate you" he committed--as Smith points out--the most important nomination since he had recommended that General Washington be made Commander-In-Chief of the American Army during the Revolutionary War. John Marshall is known as the `Great Chief Justice'. He was not the first but the fourth man to serve as Chief Justice of the United States; nevertheless it was he who would turn the Court into the institution it is today. John Marshall's accomplishment makes him probably the greatest public servant never to serve as president.

I have read and reviewed Professor Smith's biographies of Presidents Grant and Franklin Roosevelt. One of the things that Professor Smith does extremely well is his ability to cut through the myth of any particular individual and get straight to the substance of who they really were. Here, in his first attempt, Smith succeeds in getting to the man behind the myth.

Smith's Marshall is a Revolutionary solider whose nationalism is strengthened at Valley Forge along with men like George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. He becomes a successful lawyer who finds himself thrust into public service. Often he is pressured to enter the arena by the man who he admired the most: George Washington. Marshall greatly admired Washington and after the death of the first President of the United States, Marshall became his biographer.

"In Marshall's opinion, the power of government derived from the express authority granted by the people. Unlike the British parliament, the American government was not sovereign, and when it acted in the economic sphere, it was bound by the same laws of contract as a private citizen. This view became law of the land in such leading decisions of the Marshall Court as Fletcher v. Peck and the Dartmouth College case. The holding in those cases reaffirmed the vested rights of property against governmental intrusion and helped set the stage for the growth of American capitalism." (p.108)

As the Chief Justice of the United States, Marshall laid down what was to be the foundation of American constitutional law. Smith shows that Marshall was helping to do that even before he was on the bench, his action concerning the Robbins case during his stay in Congress is a good preview of what he would do on the court. This book was written in 1996, I wish some Supreme Court justices had read this prior to the disaster that was Bush v. Gore.

"Marshall was drawing a distinction between legal issues and political questions. Not everything that arises under the Constitution involves a legal issue. Some matters are political. And the courts are empowered to render decisions on legal issues only. They have no authority to decide political questions. These are the province of the executive and the legislature. Three years later in the great case of Marbury v. Madison, Marshall employed that distinction to establish the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in matters of law. While explicitly recognizing that political questions might raise constitutional issues, Marshall stated that these questions were ultimately the responsibility of the president and Congress. The distinction that Marshall drew has become one of the cornerstones of American constitutional law. In the case of the Vietnam war for example, important constitutional questions were raised about war powers, but these were political questions not legal ones. Federal courts consistently declined to entertain suits testing the war's constitutionality, citing the distinction first articulated by Marshall in his speech on the Robbins case."(p.261)

One of the myths that Smith shoots down is with the rivalry and hatred between him and President Jefferson. Smith does not say the rivalry did not exist but he shows that this developed as time went on; each side built up reasons not to like the other. A major part of myth that Smith breaks down is Jefferson's reasons for not liking the famous Marbury v. Madison decision, not because of the decision's ultimate result but rather minor technicalities with it.

"It was judicial tour de force. Marshall had converted a no-win situation into a massive victory. The authority of the Supreme Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional was now the law of the land. Typically, Marshall's decision paid heed to the claims raised on both sides of the case. The High Federalists were awarded the nominal prize of hearing that Marbury was entitled to his commission, and the Republicans gained a victory with the dismissal of the rule to show cause. But the real winner was the Supreme Court an, some might say, the Constitution itself.

The legal precedent for judicial review, that unique American doctrine that permits the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress and the executive unconstitutional, traces the holding in Marbury v. Madison. Marshall did not say that the Supreme Court was the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. He did not say that the authority to interpret the Constitution rested exclusively with the Court, and he certainly did not endorse grandiose schemes that envisaged the Supreme Court as a board of review sitting in judgment of each act of Congress to determine its constitutionality. He simply stated that the Constitution was law, and that as a judicial matter, it could be interpreted by the Court in cases that came before it." (p.323-4)

Marshall would also lay down what would be the bane of the South's argument of the nature of the Union with important decisions that reinforced the position of the Federal Government over the states.

"Marshall returned to Washington in early February for the 1810 term of the Court, a term that, with possible exception to 1803, would prove to be the most important during his tenure as chief justice. In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison the Court had established its authority to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional. In 1810, in another landmark case, Fletcher v. Peck, it would assert its authority to strike down state laws repugnant to the Constitution." (p.388)

Probably the decision that most affected the nation as a whole, was the restatement of national supremacy that would become the bedrock of Constitutional law, John C. Calhoun be damned.

"The Court's decision in McCulloch v. Maryland is a ringing restatement of national supremacy. Marshall's eloquent phrases have been invoked repeatedly by later generations of jurists and legislators to justify the expansion of national authority at the expense of the states. At the time, however, Marshall could not have envisioned the modern federal government with its greatly augmented powers to regulate the economy and promote social welfare. His decision was a defensive one. In 1819 the Court was concerned with preserving the Union against the powerful centrifugal forces that constantly threatened its dissolution. McCulloch did not so much expand federal sovereignty as restrict state sovereignty. As one scholar has written, the Court's intention was to enable the federal government to exercise its powers effectively and to prevent state encroachments upon its legitimate operations." (p.445)

The final chapter deals with the Chief Justice's last years. He dies waiting for President Andrew Jackson to get done being president so that he can retire as the Chief Justice. Marshall does not make it; Jackson is elected to a second term defeating Marshall's favorite Henry Clay. Although President Jackson did not make any Supreme Court appointments that Marshall did not like, he clashed directly with Jackson on the rights of Native Americans. However popular support was not on the aboriginal people's side. The Court stood powerless to stop what would become the trail of tears.

"The Supreme Court was on record. The Indian laws passed by the state of Georgia were unconstitutional. `The Court has done its duty,' Story wrote, `let the nation now do theirs.' But the nation was unwilling. Georgia again ignored the Court; Worcester and Butler remained in prison; and President Jackson is reported to have said, `Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.' Jackson probably did not say that, and at that point the president had no responsibility for enforcing the judgment. The degree issued by the Supreme Court merely instructed Georgia to reverse its decision and release the missionaries. The Court adjourned shortly thereafter, which meant that the decree could not be enforced until the 1833 term and that the state would not be in defiance until then." (p.518)

Like the other two books I read by Smith, John Marshall: Definer of a Nation is a great read. It is the book you want to read if you want to know about one of our most important figures in American jurisprudence, John Marshall.

[Vheissu · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a first-rate scholarly account of one of if not the most important Supreme Court justice in American history.

Having re-read Gore Vidal's Burr , I was especially interested in Marshall's relationships with Jefferson, Hamilton, and Burr. Here, again, it is Thomas Jefferson who draws the author's greatest ire and who was one of the people that Marshall despised the most. Marshal personally presided over Jefferson's trumped up trial against Burr. Marshall didn't like Burr much, given his deadly duel with Hamilton, but he believed that Jefferson was the actual threat to the Constitutional government proposed in 1787.

Thomas Jefferson was not simply a slave-owner (and hypocrite), but he was a staunch defender of the expansion of slavery to the Louisiana Territory and defended the right of states to nullify federal actions and even secede from the Union. Jefferson was a well-known critic and abuser of civil liberties and denied the propriety of an independent judiciary.

I suppose that we should always honor Jefferson for the Declaration of Independence; let his statues stand. As a person, politician, and president, however, Jefferson deserves the contempt of friends of liberty and rule of law.

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

It appears that Smith has written a well-balanced biography of Marshall, looking at the many facts of his long history. The book is well researched into both his legal development and personal life. Smith has also set out to correct misinformation and errors of prior biographies of Marshall. Despite playing a prominent role in the early history of this country, Marshall has remained a surprisingly elusive subject for historians.
Jean Edward Smith in “John Marshall: Definer of a Nation” does not offer fresh insights into Marshall’s constitutional philosophy. Instead, Smith devotes nearly half the book to Marshall’s prejudicial career. Thus Smith discusses in detail Marshall’s family background, legal education, marriage to Polly Ambler. The author also describes Marshall’s success with his Richman legal practice, acquisition of large land tracts and early forages into Virginia politics. Smith demonstrates that Marshall enjoyed a superior instruction in the law by the standards of the era. Beside reading the law, he attended the first law classes at William and Mary College. Smith goes into depth about Marshall’s service in the Revolutionary Army. The wartime experience convinced Marshall of the need for effective national government. Smith obtained the rank of General in the Virginia Militia.
The latter half of the book covers Marshall’s time as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Smith also covers the other members of the court and how they worked together most often producing a unanimous decisions. The author discusses the death and appointments of new justices and how they did or did not affect the relationship between members of the court. Many of the routines Marshall established about the operation of the Court and the Justices work assignments are still in effect today. Smith does a good job of explaining how Marshall set out to strengthen the Supreme Court as an institution. Marshall moved to reduce partisan influence of and on the court.
Jean Edward Smith is the John Marshall Professor of Political Science at Marshall University. He won the 2008 Francis Parkman prize for “FDR” (2007) biography. I read this as an e-book on my Kindle app for my iPad. If you are interested in early U.S. history or history of the Supreme Court you will enjoy this easy to read book.

[Sandra Wagner-Wright · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Marshall shaped the U. S. Supreme Court into an equal and flexible arm of government. His reputation pales in comparison to his contemporaries Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. He never held national elected office. Yet Marshall’s influence as Chief Justice was critical to building our modern democracy.

Marshall’s keen mind, social skills, and long life enabled him to build a cohesive Supreme Court that spoke with one voice. In Marbury v Madison Marshall established the principal of federal over state jurisdiction. In Sturgis v Crowninshield, Marshall broke with Jefferson over the issue of whether the new nation should be agrarian or commercial. In Cherokee National v Georgia defied Jackson over the rights of indigenous people.

Jean Smith’s prize-winning biography portrays Marshall as a well-connected Virginia family man, a public servant, and a committed judge. She deftly demonstrates how Marshall’s experiences shaped his views, and how these views made themselves part of Supreme Court decisions.

Smith’s research is nothing short of exhaustive. Her wirting style is deft – fully forthcoming without being unnecessarily tedious. John Marshall: Definer of a Nation is well worth a read.

[Kathleen · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Marshall is a lesser known Founding Father. He shouldn't be, because he is to the Supreme Court what George Washington is to the Presidency. The author, Jean Smith, gives the reader a complete picture of John Marshall the man, but focuses on Marshall's term as Chief Justice of the court. Mr. Smith outlines the facts of the major cases decided by the Marshall court. Further, the author explains how these cases established the importance, reach, and character of the court. As Mr. Smith explains, the Supreme Court we see today is largely the result of John Marshall. Mr. Smith is an able historian and biographer and his writing style makes reading a pleasurable trip through time. I have read Mr. Smith's book on U.S, Grant and look forward to reading his other writings.

[Pasfendis]

This is an excellent biography of John Marshall, officer in the Revolutionary War, lawyer, congressman, Secretary of State under John Adams and Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court from 1800 to 1835. Written in a crisp, clear narrative style that moves along at an agreeable pace, the reader is transported back to revolutionary times and immersed in the profoundly important issues of the day. The thing that struck me most about this biography is that John Marshall's appointment to the bench was one of those fortuitous events in the early history of the United States that, had it not occurred, had someone else been the Chief Justice when the most fundamental Constitutional issues were placed before the Court as a matter of first impression, the United States would not exist as we know it today. John Marshall and the Supreme Court that he led was the stabilizing force that glued the nation together in the first three decades of the 1800's and provided stability and force to the Constitution. The author also paints a vivid picture of John Marshall the man: unassuming, simple, likable and honest (he got along with everyone, even his political opponents other than Jefferson), but one of the strongest minds of his generation.

Two caveats: this biography is extremely heavily footnoted- some chapters have well over a hundred footnotes, many of which are substantive and can be lengthy and some of which are placed in the middle of sentences. Some readers will find this disruptive. I did at first but grew accustomed to it as the book progressed. In the end, I was happy to have the information. Second, John Marshall's greatest contribution to history was as a judge, so be prepared to delve into the facts of many of the cases that came before the Supreme Court. This in-depth treatment of the cases allows the reader to understand the issues in context, but does sometimes bring back memories of law school. The author covers the cases skillfully though, so it was never a slog. All in all, a very good read.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fan fiction set in Lin-Manuel Miranda's "Hamilton" universe. The main character defends Aaron Burr in court and serves alongside Lafayette! makin' redcoats redder with bloodstains.

I bought this book 15 years ago because people were singing its praises. I finally finished it this weekend after several false starts. There is no reason to be intimidated, though. It is a biography of a man instead of a law book.

Each decision makes the reader realize, “so that’s why things are like that”.
The book spends several hundred pages describing his life before he became Chief Justice and that portrayed the legal and economic landscape of colonial Virginia, the revolution, the framing of the constitution, the XYZ affair and the bitter struggle between High Federalists and Radical Republicans.
By the time he becomes chief justice, you feel personally connected enough to be cheering him on as he cajoles and compromises to make the court work.

The only thing missing for me was the aftermath of his time as Chief Justice. The book ended abruptly with his funeral and I needed a little explanation of how the Supreme Court made the transition without the man who essentially shaped it.

[Vincent Li · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought the book about a year ago and was reminded of it at an event recently where Chief Justice Roberts, citing this book as the best biography of John Marshall, mentioned that if he could work with anyone, it would be Marshall. The book is rather conventional biography and chronicles Marshall's life rather well though I have four major complaints. 1) On pg 189, the author mistakenly refers to Hamilton as a governor of New York [he never was, this stuck out to me as odd, since Hamilton consistently had conflicts with the state government], 2) the discussion of Marshall's views on the Alien and Sedition act and first amendment failed to mention at all, the scholarly work on the Framer's understanding of the first amendment and how that is shaped by Blackstone's views on prior restraint [scholarly work indicates that many Framers thought the first amendment only prohibited prior restraint, not seditious libel, while this book seems to indicate that most people thought the Sedition act was violation of the first amendment] 3) the general use of the high Federalist, federalist and republican labels without regard to the nuances of the first "party" system, where there is at least a good argument that politicians did not think of themselves in permanent parties. The Federalists thought of themselves as the government, while the Republicans thought of themselves as a temporary faction that would dissolve after overturning the "tyranny" of the federalists. 4) the normality of having judges also be involved in politics, which the author seems to recognize and contradict himself by portraying it as an unusual practice.

However, those complaints aside, the book is a good chronicle of Marshall's life. Marshall comes off as fascinating character, who was a political moderate (though this may be overwrought in the book), who had good personal relations regardless of cross politics (except with Jefferson his cousin, they apparently hated each other) and knew how to have a good time [often dining out and famous for his love of wine]. The book covers Marshall's time as a light infantyman in the revolution, to his legal practice, state legislator [and previous state experience that demonstrated that he was a convert to the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers from a young age], his role in Virginia's ratification convention, envoy to Paris, Congressman, secretary of state and finally Chief justice (while having the time to write a definitive 5 volume biography of Washington). It was interesting to me that Marshall had been nominated and senate confirmed for a few positions, but turned them down in order to focus on his private practice. It seems like a primary reason he was one of the envoys to the XYZ affair was to find private financing for his Fairfax land acquisition deal (but he so honorably handled the affair, that he was widely celebrated by the country and even political enemies such as Patrick Henry). Marshall apparently only ran for Congress (off of an anti-Alien/Sedition platform) after being beat browed into it by Washington.

Being a law student, I of course was mostly interested in Marshall's time on the court. The biography stresses a few themes of Marshall's cases which are the generally strongly pro-Union stance taken, cases that helped anchor early capitalistic growth in America (particularly in not allowing state legislatures to impair contracts, and corporate charters as well as striking down a state granted steam boat monopoly), and the unamity that Marshall encouraged along with a keen moderatism that gave something to all sides (in Marbury for example, Marshall pleased republicans by finding that the court could not issue a writ of mandamus by striking down the congressional statute that gave the court authority to issue the writ, the first case to claim judicial review). The book stresses the very purposeful unamity that Marshall strived for in the decisions (helped by his congenial personality) to give clearer guidance to the bar and enhanced the reputation of the court (something Jefferson hated and thought allowed justices to be lazy and be manipulated by Marshall). The descriptions of the major cases are pretty standard, with a good background and summary of the holding. I was pretty interested in the role of the court in Burr's treason trial, which definitively rejected constructive treason in favor of a very strict textual reading of the constitution's treason clause (also an unflattering portrayal of Jefferson's eagerness to disregard due process and judicial independence to convict Burr). It is unbelievable to me how vulnerable the court was in the early stages, which Congress and Jefferson agitating to strip the judiciary of its independence, or state rights theorists who attacked the nationalist decisions that the Marshall court handed down. Overall a recommended reading, though I cannot confirm the legal analysis, not having taken constitutional law yet.

The book was also filled with some pretty fascinating anecdotes. While courting his future wife Polly, Marshall has his marriage proposal turned down. Marshall simply got on his horse and rode away, until Polly sent after him with a lock of her hair. After their marriage Polly wore the lock of her hair in a locket until she died, at which point Marshall wore the locket until he died. In another story, Justice Story related to his friend that the court only drank wine when it was raining, but Marshall after asking Story to feel the weather outside the window always responded that the court's jurisdiction was so wide it must be raining somewhere! Marshall apparently was famous for being slothenly dressed, in one anecdote while he was shopping in the market, a man who recently moved into the neighborhood and did not recognize the Chief Justice paid the justice a tip to carry his turkey home for him.

[Andrew Canfield · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jean Edward Smith’s biography of John Marshall is an excellent portrait of the man who had a foundational role in shaping the Supreme Court. After reading Definer of a Nation, there is no doubt Marshall played a major role in raising the Court’s prestige and ensuring it took its rightful place alongside the legislative and executive branches.

The book begins by delving into details of Marshall’s early years in Virginia, and it is clear at the outset that Jean Edward Smith did his due diligence on even the lesser known portions of his subject’s life. Marshall’s service in the Revolutionary War is not just a period in his life written about and then forgotten; this experience provides an understanding of his lifelong philosophy of valuing the idea of nationhood and national unity over the dangers engendered by sectional squabbling. Marshall served at the battles of Brandywine and Germantown in the Virginia Line of Volunteers, and his father Thomas was also a commander in the Continental Army. Marshall was present with George Washington and his men during the winter of 1777-1778 at Valley Forge, an experience that certainly shaped him like it did so many others in the armed forces.

His family life receives ample attention. Having eight literate sisters and the sibling-Susan-considered to be the most intellectually gifted of them all, ingrained in Marshall a respect for the mental prowess of females that many men of his era did not possess.

Marshall was a cousin of future president Thomas Jefferson, with the latter raised in a more patrician Virginia environment. Marshall and his large family of fourteen siblings, though by no means born into a lower class family, had more of a taste for the grievances felt by those in western Virginia than someone from the Jefferson side of the family might have been exposed to. This is postulated as a reason, though not the sole one, why the two men might have had such a fundamental misunderstanding of one another during their public lives. It also did not help that Jefferson did not serve in combat in the Revolutionary War, nor were his actions as Virginia's governor during the British invasion of the South of the sort which would have earned Marshall’s (or any American for that matter) respect.

The confused interim between the end of the war and the signing of the Constitution saw Marshall, a lawyer and member of the House of Delegates, taking an active role in promoting the creation of the U.S. Constitution. While many anti-Federalists, especially men like George Mason and Patrick Henry, looked askance at the Constitution and fought to maintain a government more along the lines of the Articles of Federation, Marshall worked alongside men like fellow Virginian James Monroe to secure Virginia’s assent to the federal document. This outcome was by no means assured, and Marshall’s efforts went a long way toward making it happen.

His judicial career would be defined by a commitment to the idea of a federal government whose power would more often than not eclipse that of the various states.

Marshall would not serve as the first Chief Justice on the Court; that honor would go to John Jay. In fact, he was still back in Richmond during the Washington administration, serving in the House of Delegates and as a Virginia’s acting state attorney general.

He continued his career at the bar, earning the chance to argue a case before Supreme Court judges (who at that point still traveled on circuit to hear cases in Richmond). It was during these years that Marshall married his wife, Polly, to whom he would maintain a close relationship without his life. The author does a nice job of filling the reader in their relationship by taking a break from discussing the political and judicial to provide brief sketches of their close relationship with one another.

1797 was the year Marshall’s career moved from a state-based to a federal one. President John Adams asked him to sail to France with Charles Pinckney and Elbridge Gerry in order to negotiate with the government in Paris. Given his tendency to be viewed as sympathetic to the Federalists, Marshall was someone who certainly harbored little in the way of a perceived pro-French bias. Tensions had been high with the French thanks to policies they had adopted on the high seas during their war with Britain, and the mission was intended to break the ice.

This mission culminates in the XYZ affair, a convoluted controversy which receives a lot of attention from Jean Edward Smith. Marshall and his fellow travelers are essentially asked for a bribe from the French foreign minister Charles Talleyrand, a state of play which the book indicates was a standard operating procedure of French foreign policy. Joined with the bribe is a demand that America essentially apologize for a statement made by President Adams which the French found offensive.

Elbridge Gerry waffles back and forth on how much to capitulate, while Marshall and Pinckney repeatedly threaten to leave Paris if the demands are not backed down from. The delegates�� mission ends up with a further deterioration of the relationship with pre-Napoleonic France, as they leave and come home bearing the shocking news of an insult to America’s national honor in the form of Talleyrand’s demands.

The late 1700s and onset of the nineteenth century saw Marshall elected as a Congressman from his Virginia district, and he maintained a close relationship with John Adams during the second president’s difficult time in office. Marshall was no fan of High Federalism-the sort of thinking which resulted in Federalist-endorsed laws that Marshall did not look kindly upon like the Alien and Sedition Acts-and instead adopted a more pragmatic version of Federalism. This allowed him to dislike the former acts while also disapproving of moves like the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which he felt dabbled in anarchy by promoting the rights of states to nullify any federal laws they disliked. His penchant for opting for the achievable and pragmatic over excessive doses of ideology would be a theme the book continually hits on.

Adams would nominate Marshall to be Secretary of State, and during this time Marshall (ironically for a Federalist) distanced American foreign policy from an overreliance on the British. The accusation that Federalists were too pro-British had dogged men from George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, and Marshall wanted to see to it that America’s foreign policy was of a more even-handed variety during a time of explosive conflict between Britain and France.

Marshall is then nominated to a seat on the Supreme Court toward the end of Adams’s one and only term. At the time the court had little prestige, and it met in an office in the same building as the House of Representatives. The timing of his nomination was fortunate, as Jefferson would take the oath of office less than a year later and would certainly never have put his cousin’s name forward for the open slot.

It is at this halfway point that the book hits its stride. The author never lets the text become too bogged down in the nuances of various cases before the Court, but he does nice work in laying out the basics of them so even non-lawyers among readers can grasp them. The gist of Marshall’s time as Chief Justice is that he placed a huge value on having as many of the justices board under the same roof while in the new capital city of Washington, D.C. as he could. He is shown to be a master host and persuader, and the advantages of time spent face-to-face with one another goes a long way toward the consensus that was maintained by the justices during the decisions of so many diverse cases.

Fellow justices like Joseph Story, Brockholst Livington, and Bushrod Washington are all written of as having good relationships with one another, writing unanimous opinions for a huge percentage of their decisions. Marshall’s quest for consensus and desire to avoid politicization of the Court came from his own philosophy about how the institution should operate, but this was also done in order to blunt frequent attacks from Republicans to undermine its legitimacy.

The Supreme Court’s power began to strengthen with the establishment of judicial review in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case, a hallmark decision which started with a seemingly mundane complaint over a midnight judge’s appointment and concluding with the Court possessing the authority to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional. Any book on John Marshall, or the Supreme Court in general, would be nothing without a robust analysis of this case. This analysis is expertly provided by Smith.

The deliberations on a slew of cases during Marshall’s 34 years on the Court are analyzed. In Little V. Barreme the Court established the president’s inherent authority to make decisions on military emergencies absent action from Congress. This strengthening of the executive branch saw its corollary in a case like McCulloch v. Maryland, whereby the Marshall’s decision established stronger Congressional oversight of interstate commerce and dealt a blow to opponents of a National Bank.

Since the Supreme Court justices still traveled circuit in the 1800s, Marshall presided over the famous Aaron Burr treason trial. The back-and-forths of his closely followed case ending up dealing with questions of executive privilege along the lines of how much leeway a president has in furnishing communications, and the conclusion reached on the definition of treason is still looked to today in order to define that hard-to-define crime.

The chapter on the Yazoo Land Case saw the court having to walk a fine line between deciding a case and not treading too much into politics. The argument over the selling of land of dubious title in Georgia was a land mine for Marshall, and in this case-Fletcher v. Peck-the decision sought to increase the confidence in title to deeds to land. Any corruption in the state legislature that might have occurred during the buying of land was not going to be something the Chief Justice involved the Supreme Court in; they instead stuck to securing property rights and deciding the question squarely in front of them.

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee did violence to the claims of states like Virginia that the Constitution was merely a compact between the various states. Under this compact theory, the states were sovereign and had leeway interpreting federal law. Marshall gave no quarter to this way of looking at things. Martin v Hunter’s Lessee dealt with the Virginia Court of Appeals defying the Supreme Court on a land title case, and Marshall was not going to let any such defiance stand. His tenure on the Court went a long way to extinguishing the states’ right proponents and instead stitching together a vision of a United States created by people, not breathed into being artificial entities known as states. The supremacy of the federal government and its Constitution over state laws was a concept Marshall never questioned.

The diversity of precedents set by John Marshall can be seen in cases like the Dartmouth College case (which protected private contracts from interference even by state legislatures) and Sturgis v. Crowninshield (which dealt with bankruptcy law), decisions which which still carry weight over a century after they were handed down.

Marshall even finds time to compose a fairly well-received multi volume biography of George Washington, something it seems amazing he was able to do in spite of an incredibly busy schedule. This is one of the many contributions he made to his country aside from the mammoth ones made from the Supreme Court bench.

John Marshall: Definer of a Nation is a fantastic work of nonfiction. It encapsulates so many crucial years in U.S. history, letting readers view national changes through the eyes of the most influential Supreme Court justice in history. Spanning from the colonial years to the Jackson administration, this book lays out the growth of the country from backwoods states to a united nation-state. The role the Supreme Court played in shaping everything from contract to bankruptcy law to relations with Native American tribes is walked through with attentiveness to nuance, and for this the book is deserving of five stars.

-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado

[Theresa Leone Davidson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very good biography of Marshall, and covers both his personal and public life, but even more importantly, it is another view to how the United States and her government were formed. I love the history of the US, the revolution, and all of the subsequent machinations that led to the republic we now have, and this book was a great addition. Thoughtfully written and well researched, I can highly recommend.

[Kenneth · Rating 5 out of 5]

After reading 50 pages of this book, I asked myself," what other books has this author written? I have to pick up another one of his books". After 100 pages, I find myself reading up on the biography of the author and after finding out that his daytime job is as Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto, wishing that I was one of his students. Forget about Antonin Scalia and these modern day justices. They are midgets. Marshall was a giant who towered over them and was as important as any of the founding fathers.
In reading this book, you learn all about John Marshall the man, but I also picked up quite a few points about the American Revolution period that some of those “rock-star” historians left out of their best selling books. If you like reading American history, or about the Supreme Court, then I highly recommend this book.

[Philip · Rating 5 out of 5]

When reading a biography, one should always keep in mind that the biographer likely has some affinity for the subject of the book. The author took the vast amount of time to research and write the book; so, I am always skeptical as I read a biography.

This work on Marshall follows the same path as most biographical accounts. As a person who has studied the Founders at some length, I must admit that I knew the least about Marshall; yet, he is the founder with the longest and arguably most influential role in the young republic. This biography provides a well-balanced perspective on Marshall. The chief justice is stripped of his robes, and a human emerges. It was a fascinating read and worth one's while.

[Kaitlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably more like 4.5 stars. Entirely engaging despite its immense size, this was an incredibly interesting biography. I loved how the author made sure to explain the relevant world events in conjunction with the events in Marshall's life. As always, the history of the early United States amazes me. John Marshall was an integral part of events and reading his biography gave me a lot of respect for him. Despite how long it took me to read this, I never felt bored and I could slip in and out of the narrative without forgetting everything I'd read before. Excellent book.

[Mark Roth · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book covers the life of John Marshall, America's first great Chief Justice. It documents the entire span of his life, starting from his family background and early years, continuing on to his service in the Revolutionary War, his few brief political positions before being appointed Chief Justice, and his long tenure on the Supreme Court.

Before reading this book, I was aware that Marshall had provided many defining opinions for the Court that have helped shape our nation. However, the book also reminded me of several things about Marshall that I had forgotten and informed me about a number of details I never knew. For example, I had not truly realized until reading this book how long of a life and career Marshall had. As a junior member of the Revolutionary generation, Marshall served in the Revolutionary War under George Washington, and he entered public service during John Adams' presidency. His tenure continued until most of the founders' generation had passed away or retired and the country's leadership had passed into the hands of the next generation, composed of men like Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson.

Marshall's service as a junior officer in the Revolutionary War was a formative experience for him. Experiences like the terrible winter conditions at Valley Forge due to the lack of provisions and the refusal of his home state of Virginia to authorize a new recruitment of soldiers for the Continental Army (which is what ended his participation in the war) taught him the perils of disunion. Marshall later was a formidable voice in favor of ratifying the Constitution at Virginia's state convention, and years later, he would be a formidable voice supporting the union from the bench on the Supreme Court.

Although I'm sure I had learned this in high school, I had completely forgotten that Marshall was one of the three commissioners to France during the infamous "XYZ affair" during John Adams' presidency. Although he probably only accepted this appointment because he had personal financial reasons to make a trip to Europe anyway (he had previously intended to remain focused on his private law career), his steadfast behavior in refusing to offer a bribe to French Foreign Minister Talleyrand did much credit to both himself and to the U.S. When news of the affair became known in the U.S., Marshall became widely known and respected in the public eye.

After returning home, Marshall intended to go back to his law practice. However, a personal appeal from former president George Washington, whom Marshall greatly respected, convinced him to run for Congress as a Federalist at a time when most of Virginia leaned Republican. The great respect that the public held for Marshall meant that he was one of the few Federalists that could win an election from Virginia, which is exactly what happened. However, before his single term in Congress was complete, President Adams shuffled his cabinet appointments and asked Marshall to take over as Secretary of State. Marshall served for less than a year as Secretary of State before Adams was defeated by Jefferson in the election of 1800. One of Adams' last acts in office was to appoint Marshall as Chief Justice.

Marshall was actually the nation's third Chief Justice, but neither of his predecessors had served for very long or left much of an imprint upon the institution of the Supreme Court; in fact, there was so little for the Court to do during those early years that Chief Justice John Jay spent much of his tenure acting as ambassador to England. It was Marshall that truly established the Supreme Court as another fully equal branch of the Federal Government through decisions like Marbury v. Madison, which established the principle of judicial review (in other words, the power of the Supreme Court to declare state or federal laws unconstitutional). Marshall also established the precedent for announcing an "opinion of the Court", rather than having each justice deliver their own opinion; he worked hard to bring the justices to consensus whenever possible, which helped establish the idea that the Court speaks with one voice, thus raising the prestige of the Court. And through numerous decisions over the years, Marshall was a strong supporter of the power of the Federal Government over states' rights arguments.

I was particularly struck by one pattern in Marshall's decisions, which is that he often tried to keep the Court out of partisan conflicts by steering a middle ground in highly contentious cases. He would often do this by setting precedent based on firm principles but finding a pragmatic application of that principle that more closely matched what the details of the case required. One great example of this was the aforementioned case of Marbury v. Madison, which threatened to provoke a constitutional crisis in an era when the Court was seen as a partisan Federalist instrument; Marshall used it as an opportunity to establish the important principle of judicial review (which supported Federalist doctrine) but then used that principle to rule that he could not grant the writ that Marbury (a Federalist) was requesting. It was an extremely effective way to both avoid the crisis and establish the Court as a non-partisan branch of government.

This book was extremely well written, informative, and engaging. It paints a complete picture of a very interesting man during a very interesting time in American history. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in this time period.

[Andrea Hagen-Arndt · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the kind of book that I love. It introduces an incredible man, one called "The Great Justice," who as the first Chief Justice has had unparalleled influence upon court interpretations that have followed. This is not dry, dull or difficult reading. It's hard to put down and one of those books that you never want to end.

[Robert K · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Marshall Book Review: Read December 2017—January 15, 2019—I was ensconced in this book. It was a long read only because I allowed the 736 pages to intimidate me, but, I never gave up because every chapter taught me something new or reinforced a principle I needed to remember & reapply. In my mind, One of the five greatest Americans...To wit:
1) John Marshall studied in Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia under the legendary teacher of many of this nation’s founders, George Wythe.

2 John Marshall answered the call of his country to fight in the Revolutionary War. He endured Valley Forge with Washington & watched Cornwallis surrender at Yorktown.

3. He served as emissary to France to get the Treaty of Versailles, which officially ended the Revolutionary War Ended.

4. Having gained Washington’s trust, He later wrote one of the seminal biographies of the Father of this country.

5. He sacrificed often; left a flourishing law practice to serve two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives.

6. He answered President John Adams call in 1789 to be Secretary of State & finally Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Served for 36 years.

7. He loved his wife & fathered many children many of whom died in childhood.

8. During his tenure on the Court, Marshshall succeeded in establishing the Judiciary as a legitimate co-equal branch of the American government along with Executive & Legislative branches. He did this by learning how to work together with dozens of disparate personalities gaining a high percentage of unanimous decisions.

9. Among the decisions he rendered (Marbury vs Madison—1803) were the following: Judicial Review

“It is emphatically the province & duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. The Constitution was law. If two laws rose in conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. If a law & the Constitution are in conflict & of both apply to a particular case, the Court must determine which of the conflicting rules governs the case. This is the essence of judicial duty. If the courts are obliged the interpret the Constitution, & the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature—the Constitution, & not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”

10. (McCullough vs Maryland -1719) Implied powers of Congress. At issue was whether The Congress could create the Bank of the United States & whether Maryland could tax it. Writing for a unanimous Court, Marshall held that Congress did have the (implied) powers to create such a bank & that states did not have (implied) powers to thwart or impede the operation of what Congress created. (The Bank in this case).

11. (Cohens vs Virginia—1821) The Supreme Court has powers over each state court & states or compacts of states can not combine to thwart the Constitution or national will or greater good of the people. President Lincoln clearly adopted Marshall’s thinking on this year’s later even though Marshall’s successor, Roger B Taney, did not

12. (Gibbons vs. Ogden—1824) Defined Commerce & rules of navigation. Established that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution did not allow one state to impede obstruct commerce of other states. Did more to promote capitalism & American supremacy in market economies, than any other event in history, thus binding the businessmen of the country together in support of free enterprise system which created the world’s greatest standard of living...lifting human beings out of poverty everywhere...incalculable benefits to mankind.

13. Nullification—In one of his last great acts before his death in 1835, he was pleasantly surprised that Andrew Jackson supported his views & legal findings that South Carolina, (nor any state) could nullify Acts of Congress that State didn’t like. Also satisfying to Marshall was James Madison’s statement validating his views that nullification was un Constitutional. Madison, as the primary author & Father of the Constitution, gave Marshall & Jackson’s views on nullification great credibility.

14. Gained the respect of notables by acting & behaving with dignity till his death.

15. The Liberty bell in Philadelphia cracked while ringing to announce Marshall’s death.

[Quinndara · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Marshall was born in Germantown, Virginia on September 24, 1755. He grew up in a small log cabin and was the oldest child from a large family that included 14 brothers and sisters. Because there were no schools near where the Marshals lived, John received most of his education from his father who read classical works aloud which they then would discuss. In that way, John Marshal was introduced to the important ideas of the times and got a solid grounding in principles. He was especially taken by the works of Alexander Pope and often copied the text and form of Pope’s writing to develop his own skills. In 1755 he served in the Revolutionary War under General Washington and was inspired by his leadership. Later in life, he wrote a 5 volume history of Colonial America and George Washington.

He became a lawyer in 1780 and practiced law in Virginia. In 1782 he was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates. He then attended the Virginia state convection and led the fight to ratify the constitution. From 1782 to 1795, he held various political offices, including the position of secretary of state in 1800 where he served in Paris for several months tying to get Talleyrand, France’s foreign minister, to work out a peace treaty between France and America. In 1801, he became chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, serving until his death, on July 6, 1835, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Supreme court could not have been served by a better man. John Marshal loved the constitution and spent his years as Chief Justice defending the constitution by interpreting, defining, explaining, and declaring, often in lengthy holdings, which laws are constitutional and which are not. The authority of the Supreme Court was often questioned and frequently under attack by important people such as, Thomas Jefferson, who champed at the authority of a judicial body which could override his power, and by state’s rights advocates who did not want their laws found unconstitutional (which sometimes happened under the Marshal court).

This book details the constitutional cases which came before the court and the controversy which surrounded each issue. The author details how carefully, and with lengthy discussions among the different justices, the Marshal court articulated each decision. At times, the holdings (decisions) were several pages long with Marshall writing the largest percent. His holdings, written with great consideration to all parties, eventually won the court great respect. Its standing also improved under the Madison and Monroe’s presidencies: Madison because he helped write the constitution and understood the importance of a judicial body which could uphold the constitutionality of laws; and Monroe, because he was Marshal’s friend who also keenly knew the value of the constitution. That the Supreme Court became the significant institution it is today, is Marshal’s due. Marbury v. Madison, one of the first cases to come before the court, was one of the most important decisions in U.S. judicial history, because it legitimized the ability of the Supreme Court to judge the constitutionality of acts of the president or Congress.

Marshal is a man to look up to and emulate. In his 70's and still Chief Justice, one admirer said of him, “Marshal’s mind is like the ocean, others are like ponds.” This book is for anyone interested in the court’s early years and how the influence and personality of John Marshal helped shape it into what it is today.

[Andrew]

At this point I've read many biographies concerning the movers and shakers of this period in American political history. In almost all of them, John Marshall is likely to appear somewhere, but he remains a shadowy figure on the sidelines. My intention in reading this book was to put him front and center, and decide for myself what he represents. I also wanted to explore the origins of the Supreme Court, to go back to a time when it deserved more respect. I wasn't too intimidated by the length of the book, as I've come to appreciate the hectic interpersonal relationships of this period of time, and like to see how different biographers approach it.

A good part of the book is structured around a letter Marshall wrote concerning a rough sketch of his life up to that point. Aside from that, and the scraps of letters that are available, Marshall's voice comes primarily through the text of his decisions in Court. We get a clear view of his amiable personality, his love for barbecue and Madeira, as well as the camaraderie he fostered with his fellow judges. Still, his humanity comes through. Several of the letters that do survive show a gloomier side of Marshall's personality, his despair for the Union and how much longer the Constitution could hold it together. Despite the author's limitations, he did well in humanizing his subject. But the book is primarily focused on his political life and his decisions in Court.

What emerges is an impressive career and a stabilizing force in a fragile period in the country's formative years. He served under Washington at Valley Forge during the Revolutionary War, on and off in Virginia's House of Delegates, and at various points in all three branches of the federal government. George Washington clearly thought highly of Marshall, as during his Presidency he nominated the future chief justice for multiple posts. But it wasn't until after he had relinquished the office to Adams that he would convince Marshall to enter politics for good. It was his successor who would eventually receive Marshall's approval in a federal appointment, which set the events of the XYZ affair in motion. Marshall's reputation was sealed upon his return, guaranteeing a long, illustrious career.

A few closing thoughts. One could take a cynical view that, even in its prime, the Supreme Court prioritized its own survival over that of the government itself. Marshall hesitated to take decisions that couldn't be enforced, so he would engineer a solution that would please his fellow judges and heal the polarization that had become more or less permanent. This view would ignore Marshall's love for the Constitution. His life is a testament to his faith in the document, and his longevity as chief justice ensured stability in the judiciary in a time when it was absolutely needed. His rivalry with Thomas Jefferson is a subject which deserves a book of its own; though it seems to an extent to stem from personal differences that can only be speculated on.

Overall, an excellent book about a branch of government I've long ignored. One wonders how Marshall would have fared as President.

[Paul Gibson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although you might not be as familiar with his name, John Marshall was arguably as important during the time of Thomas Jefferson's administration as Jefferson himself. And, like Jefferson, his legacy is still with us today. Marshall was employed by the first two US presidents and he served as chief justice through five more presidents during his tenure on the US Supreme Court.
A few of my favorite quotes from the book’s author:
1) “Yet for all their differences, each represented a vital current in the American mainstream. Jefferson believed passionately in majority rule. Marshall, just as earnestly, feared majority tyranny. Jefferson was attached to liberty and equality. Marshall stood for the rule of law and a government of checks and balances. Jefferson tilted to the left, Marshall to the right, but between them they encompassed the vast center of the political spectrum. Regardless of their mutual distrust, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the man destined to become the guardian of the Constitution were each essential to the emerging American consensus.”
2) This quote isn't about Marshall but about: "[Elbridge] Gerry's contrariness grew out of his ferocious attachment to the republican ideal. It was a classical abstraction that he took literally, and his devotion to it often rendered him incapable of distinguishing between small points and major issues. [H]e viewed politics as an unceasing struggle between liberty and power. The inevitable disharmony between his ideal of republican virtue and the world he confronted left Gerry eternally suspicious. It was, according to his otherwise respectful son-in-law, ‘the weakest trait of his mind'. . . . After his tenure in Paris, he served as governor of Massachusetts, where his partisan efforts to redistrict the state for the Republicans' advantage added the term ‘gerrymander’ to the nation's vocabulary.”
3) And much like today when those of Republican leanings disagree with the court: “. . . Despite twenty-three years of Republican presidents - and five Republican appointees [several being Jefferson’s own appointees] to the bench – the sage of Monticello [Jefferson] continued to fume against the Supreme Court [as being biased] . . .”
But Jefferson's friend and ally, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, disagreed, he supported the Supreme Court “. . . suggesting that Congress was a far greater problem than the court.”
Also under the category of “history repeats itself”, when one of the Supreme Court justice’s died, those supporting Andrew Jackson rallied to keep the current president from appointing a new justice until the new President was sworn-in so Jackson could pick.
It might be said that the first shot of the civil war was in 1836 when Andrew Jackson nominated Marshall’s successor, Roger Taney.

[Porkinsred6 · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have been reading a lot of the founding fathers biographies lately in hopes to understand the foundations of what our Constitution was built upon. In part because I am a nerd and love to read about history, but also in part because I hope it will shed some light on our current political situation. In almost all of the books that I have read in the last couple years the authors have mentioned John Marshall in different capacities. some mention him in passing, some go through great pains to highlight the impact that he had upon America. This is what led me to read this book, to understand better this founding father who is often overlooked by the educational system. Jean Edward Smith wrote an amazing book about the man John Marshall, but also outlines exactly how Marshall left his imprint on America through his service in the military and congress, then state department, and finally the Supreme Court. Smith explains the cultural and political impact of the Marshall Court, and how it shaped American culture today. For anyone interested in a deeper understanding of how our Constitution was written and how we interpret it today, this is a must read.

[Steven Douglas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a fascinating, well researched, thorough, and well written biography. I am not a fan of reading about law but this was, as far as biographies go, a real page turner. John Marshall's name has come up throughout my years of education and recently in biographies of other founding fathers and presidents, but I had no idea how remarkable and pivotal he was to not just the founding of the nation, but the stability of it for decades after ratification.

The only shortcoming of this book is the abrupt ending. I wish the author would have devoted a chapter to the legacy of John Marshall and the importance of his court to the Supreme Court, Constitutional law, and American politics as a whole.

[Jdb · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.75 stars

This bio whizzes through Marshall’s youth and revolutionary war experience and then blossoms upon his taking the Chief Justice’s position. The highlights are the significant Decisions rendered by him on cases involving key Constitutional questions, superbly narrated by Smith. If Madison’s fame is tied to his management of the Constitution ratification process, Marshall’s comes from his applying the Constitutional principles to the reality of governing under this new system. Marshall’s opinions are logically laid out for understanding by the average citizen as well as the legal scholar.
It’s no wonder that the first thing one sees when entering the Supreme Court building today is a larger than life statute of Marshall.

[Kim Dennis · Rating 4 out of 5]

For the most part, I really enjoyed this book. There were a few places it got a little slow -- a little too much legal stuff going on -- but what can I expect from a book about John Marshall?

As always, with a good biography, I came away from this a little sad when he died. With all of the divisiveness we are dealing with today, it would be awfully nice to have a man like that in the Court. I'm amazed and the unanimity he was able to bring about. I was also a little surprised with the chapter on Andrew Jackson. I actually expected quite a bit more discord between the two of them than there seems to have been.

There were some fun things I found that I can use in my history classes. :)

[Geo Forman · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have often heard how vital Washington was to the survival of our young country; a more ambitious or selfish man could have succumbed to temptation of power that was thrust upon him. After reading this book, I think John Marshall may share that stature when it comes to establishing guidelines to the separation of powers. A lesser man may have arrived at different decisions that could have resulted in breaking apart the country.

A well written work explaining the reason behind the stature of John Marshall, not our first Chief Justice but our most influential and important for our young country