What do you think?
Rate this book
Library of American Biography
John Marshall: Defender of the Constitution
Brief, paperback biography that discusses John Marshall, American statesman and jurist.
- GenresHistory
181 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
2 people are currently reading
32 people want to read
About the author
Francis N. Stites
3 booksA specialist in American legal history, Francis Noel Stites taught at San Diego State University from 1968 until his retirement. He earned his bachelor's degree at Marian College in 1960, and his MA (1965) and Ph.D. (1968) from Indiana University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
September 11, 2023
John Marshall is to the American judiciary what George Washington is to the nation’s presidency. Though not the first chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, he was the one who took what was a role sketched out on paper and built it into one of the coequal branches of the federal government. Key to this was his extraordinary gifts as a jurist and a political thinker, which he exercised over a tenure as chief justice that spanned over a third of a century. Not only did his time in the office set a record that has yet to be surpassed, but it gave him an influence on the development of American law and politics long after his contemporaries had passed from the scene.
Recounting such a lengthy era of accomplishment, as well as the years that preceded it, in less than 200 pages is no easy task, which itself makes Francis Stites’s book a noteworthy achievement. It provides an efficient account of its subject that, by giving equal attention to Marshall’s life before his time on the Court, situates the development of his views on the Constitution within the context of his pre-judicial career. This he uses to present Marshall as a conservative nationalist, which Stites regards as the unifying theme that shaped Marshall’s approach to the cases that he faced during his time on the bench.
Stites identifies a social conservatism at the core of Marshall’s views that was a product of his upbringing as a member of the colonial Virginia gentry. Though part of the lower elite, his family’s social status was improving thanks to the efforts of John Marshall’s father, Thomas, who through family connections, a good marriage, and land speculation, built it up at a climactic point in the colony’s history. As a member of the House of Burgesses in the 1760s and 1770s, Thomas Marshall supported the protests against Parliament’s efforts to impose taxes on the colonies, and when Virginia joined the other colonies in rebellion both he and his son volunteered for service. Enlisting as a lieutenant in the Continental Army, young John fought in several battles before he was furloughed in 1780, at which point he read law under George Wythe before being admitted to the state bar.
Moving to Richmond, Marshall quickly built a successful career as an attorney in the state’s new capital, and in 1785 he won his first elections to public office. Alarmed by the growing popular debt relief movements, as a member of Virginia’s ratification convention he campaigned to ratify the new Constitution in 1788. Though he soon aligned with the new Federalist Party, Marshall twice declined offers from George Washington to serve in his administration, and only agreed to accept appointment by his successor, John Adams, to a three-member commission to France in the belief that his mission there would be short. Instead, Marshall’s role in what became known as the XYZ Affair made him a national hero, paving the way for his election to Congress and service as Secretary of State in the final months of Adams’s presidency.
As Secretary of State, Marshall was at hand when Adams learned in January 1801 that John Jay had declined his appointment as Oliver Ellsworth’s successor as the Supreme Court’s chief justice. Jay’s rejection was in part a reflection of the low regard in which the Court was held at that time, with some justices sent on diplomatic missions because of their availability or resigning for more prestigious offices at the state level. With the victorious Democratic-Republicans targeting the Federalist-dominated judiciary, the entire judicial branch seemed under threat, and with it the balance of power established in the Constitution. Stites sees the preservation of the judiciary’s independence as the first of Marshall’s achievements as chief justice, which he did adroitly with the decisions in both the famous Marbury v. Madison and the lesser-known Stuart v. Laird cases, which together confirmed the Court’s role in determining the constitutionality of federal legislation. Aiding their impact was Marshall’s efforts to issue single opinions rather than several opinions seriatim as had been the practice beforehand, a move which strengthened further the Court’s role as an arbiter of constitutional questions.
This role only grew once Democratic-Republican attacks on the judiciary had eased. Here Stites faces his greatest challenge, which is summarizing the vast amount of work undertaken by the Court in the decades that followed. Sensibly, he acknowledges the impossibility of the task by focusing on key cases that highlight the evolution of the Court’s jurisprudence during Marshall’s tenure. Even this is no small task, as featuring them requires him to provide the context and political implications of these decisions, the navigation of which reflected the political dimensions of Marshall’s role as chief justice. That this proved more difficult in his later years reflected the shift that was taking place in American politics, with the rise of a new style of democracy that was anathema to Marshall’s vision forcing the chief justice to trim his sails rather than risk a confrontation that would undermine his accomplishments.
Marshall’s final years were plagued with disappointment, as the once-dominant chief justice could no longer achieve even the unanimity among his colleagues that had been such an asset in advancing his vision of a stable, conservative union. Nevertheless, as Stites makes clear, the sum of Marshall’s achievements in establishing the primacy of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court far outlasted him. His book is an extremely effective overview of the chief justice’s career, one that draws him out from the morass of legal detail to define a coherent understanding of his ideology. Though Stites’s achievement is blunted somewhat by inaccuracies in some of the details and a slight penchant for drama in the quest for readability, for anyone seeing an accessible introduction to a seminal figure in the history of the Supreme Court this is the book to read.
Recounting such a lengthy era of accomplishment, as well as the years that preceded it, in less than 200 pages is no easy task, which itself makes Francis Stites’s book a noteworthy achievement. It provides an efficient account of its subject that, by giving equal attention to Marshall’s life before his time on the Court, situates the development of his views on the Constitution within the context of his pre-judicial career. This he uses to present Marshall as a conservative nationalist, which Stites regards as the unifying theme that shaped Marshall’s approach to the cases that he faced during his time on the bench.
Stites identifies a social conservatism at the core of Marshall’s views that was a product of his upbringing as a member of the colonial Virginia gentry. Though part of the lower elite, his family’s social status was improving thanks to the efforts of John Marshall’s father, Thomas, who through family connections, a good marriage, and land speculation, built it up at a climactic point in the colony’s history. As a member of the House of Burgesses in the 1760s and 1770s, Thomas Marshall supported the protests against Parliament’s efforts to impose taxes on the colonies, and when Virginia joined the other colonies in rebellion both he and his son volunteered for service. Enlisting as a lieutenant in the Continental Army, young John fought in several battles before he was furloughed in 1780, at which point he read law under George Wythe before being admitted to the state bar.
Moving to Richmond, Marshall quickly built a successful career as an attorney in the state’s new capital, and in 1785 he won his first elections to public office. Alarmed by the growing popular debt relief movements, as a member of Virginia’s ratification convention he campaigned to ratify the new Constitution in 1788. Though he soon aligned with the new Federalist Party, Marshall twice declined offers from George Washington to serve in his administration, and only agreed to accept appointment by his successor, John Adams, to a three-member commission to France in the belief that his mission there would be short. Instead, Marshall’s role in what became known as the XYZ Affair made him a national hero, paving the way for his election to Congress and service as Secretary of State in the final months of Adams’s presidency.
As Secretary of State, Marshall was at hand when Adams learned in January 1801 that John Jay had declined his appointment as Oliver Ellsworth’s successor as the Supreme Court’s chief justice. Jay’s rejection was in part a reflection of the low regard in which the Court was held at that time, with some justices sent on diplomatic missions because of their availability or resigning for more prestigious offices at the state level. With the victorious Democratic-Republicans targeting the Federalist-dominated judiciary, the entire judicial branch seemed under threat, and with it the balance of power established in the Constitution. Stites sees the preservation of the judiciary’s independence as the first of Marshall’s achievements as chief justice, which he did adroitly with the decisions in both the famous Marbury v. Madison and the lesser-known Stuart v. Laird cases, which together confirmed the Court’s role in determining the constitutionality of federal legislation. Aiding their impact was Marshall’s efforts to issue single opinions rather than several opinions seriatim as had been the practice beforehand, a move which strengthened further the Court’s role as an arbiter of constitutional questions.
This role only grew once Democratic-Republican attacks on the judiciary had eased. Here Stites faces his greatest challenge, which is summarizing the vast amount of work undertaken by the Court in the decades that followed. Sensibly, he acknowledges the impossibility of the task by focusing on key cases that highlight the evolution of the Court’s jurisprudence during Marshall’s tenure. Even this is no small task, as featuring them requires him to provide the context and political implications of these decisions, the navigation of which reflected the political dimensions of Marshall’s role as chief justice. That this proved more difficult in his later years reflected the shift that was taking place in American politics, with the rise of a new style of democracy that was anathema to Marshall’s vision forcing the chief justice to trim his sails rather than risk a confrontation that would undermine his accomplishments.
Marshall’s final years were plagued with disappointment, as the once-dominant chief justice could no longer achieve even the unanimity among his colleagues that had been such an asset in advancing his vision of a stable, conservative union. Nevertheless, as Stites makes clear, the sum of Marshall’s achievements in establishing the primacy of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court far outlasted him. His book is an extremely effective overview of the chief justice’s career, one that draws him out from the morass of legal detail to define a coherent understanding of his ideology. Though Stites’s achievement is blunted somewhat by inaccuracies in some of the details and a slight penchant for drama in the quest for readability, for anyone seeing an accessible introduction to a seminal figure in the history of the Supreme Court this is the book to read.
August 4, 2018
This was a short but detailed review of Chief Justice John Marshall’s entire life. It gives a brief background into his father’s political, business, and family to provide context for references to him later in the book. There are many references to his interactions with other founders of the country, both personally and politically, always from the perspective of John Marshall tending to have the more righteous view, as one would expect from a biography focused on him. I enjoyed this as I have read of events during this time period more from the perspective of the Presidents of the era than of any other branch of the government.
The author broke the book into significant time periods of his life in a way that made mental organization easy and also progressed from one event to the next smoothly while intertwining his personal, professional, and political perspectives throughout. References to his major case decisions and opinions and how these established the Constitution in American Society are a focus and are thoroughly and concisely explained. This book provided a positive and useful introduction to John Marshall and his perspective on the founding and early development of the United States.
The author broke the book into significant time periods of his life in a way that made mental organization easy and also progressed from one event to the next smoothly while intertwining his personal, professional, and political perspectives throughout. References to his major case decisions and opinions and how these established the Constitution in American Society are a focus and are thoroughly and concisely explained. This book provided a positive and useful introduction to John Marshall and his perspective on the founding and early development of the United States.
September 30, 2011
Short and dense biography. But very good. Marshall is an under-appreciated person of the founding generation. He was a Federalist who believed in a much stronger national government at a time when those positions were becoming increasingly unpopular. But rather than give up, he fought from his perch on the US Supreme Court to make sure that the US government would have the tools it would need to build a stronger nation. He was a slave owner, a sin he will never recover from. But he was also a devoted husband and fun guy in other ways. Great leader of the Court in a position that offers few real leadership tools.
November 12, 2013
This book gave me a clear idea of the life of John Marshall and gave background for his various jobs. I give this book four stars because while the book was accurate and a good read if you are in apush, it wasn't always the most interesting book to read.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews