Paul provides a detailed examination of the life of John Marshall in this book. He notes “This is the story of the life and times of an exceptional man who mastered the art of self-invention and applied it to everything he did.”
Paul summarized Marshall’s time on the court as follows: “ For thirty-four years on the Supreme Court, Marshall resisted the centrifugal forces of regionalism and parochialism. He eschewed rigid ideology. His was a consistent voice for moderation, compromise, and pragmatism in the face of ideologues and adversaries. In an era without precedent, Marshall invented the legal principles that form the foundation of American constitutional and international law today. He defended the independence of the judiciary and the sanctity of property and contract. He jealously guarded the separation of powers. And he dared to imagine a dynamic interpretation of the Constitution that could accommodate the nation’s progress from a backward localized agrarian economy to a modern national industrial economy.”
One of the major themes of the book is comparing Marshall and Thomas Jefferson. They came from different backgrounds and political affiliation. The following is one such passage: “Until Jefferson’s passing, they lived as mirror opposites for half a century in almost every way. No Marshall biography can avoid taking sides in their conflicted relationship. That is not to say that Marshall was always right or that Jefferson was always wrong. Both were exceptional and entirely human. They were flawed, and sometimes they erred. Yet both Marshall and Jefferson were indispensable to the founding of the Republic.”
Marshall’s outlook on life was also shaped through war. He fought in the Revolutionary War including the winter at Valley Forge. He also saw the British capture Richmond and Charlottesville. Paul notes: “Death and destruction demonstrated to Marshall the essential fragility of the social contract. It was easy for Jefferson to write about revolution since he had never experienced war firsthand. Marshall’s military experience taught him to eschew facile ideologies and resort to violence. The elements of Marshall’s conservatism were now formed—a belief in ordered liberty and a respect for property, national defense, moderation, and the need for reconciliation.“
Paul picks some of the memorable Supreme Court cases that Marshall decided and analyzes them in detail including Marbury v Madison and Gibbons v Ogden.
Overall this is a thorough biography of the life of John Marshall. I rate it 3 out of 5 stars.
William Wilberforce has been called an agitator for his commitment to ending the slave trade. One of his well known speeches on the subject was given on May 12, 1789.
Cardinal Richelieu has been hailed as a great statesman and as a subversive authoritarian. Depending on who you talk to he was a man needed to strengthen the monarchy in France, or he was a tyrant seeking personal power. Next week I will have a book review that may shed more light on Cardinal Richelieu.
When Lenin was working on his major writing projects he would often pace across the room formulating the ideas that he would write down by saying them out loud. Once he had the idea for what he wanted to write he would often repeat the idea to Nadezhda Krupskaya, who would provide feedback. Once this process was complete he would then write the ideas down.
Here is an AI rendering of what that might have looked like when he was drafting What is to be Done.
This month this community will focus on political subversion. What is subversion? When is it justified? What is the interplay between subversion and agitation? These are some of the topics to be discussed this month.
“You get used to the despot’s shortcomings, when they are not great vices, and the change of an autocratic ruler leads to involuntary fear.”
Sergei Trubetskoi
