The decades before and after the turn of the twentieth century, like those surrounding the turn of the twenty-first, are often understood as periods of globalization. The two periods share key features that characterize the global as a motif, including high mobility of goods, services, people, ideas and, perhaps most centrally, capital. An important distinguishing feature between the periods is the monetary regime: the gold standard for the turn of the twentieth century; managed flexibility (ranging from currency pegs to floating exchange rates) for the turn of the twenty-first. This paper examines the legal infrastructure of these two monetary regimes in order to illuminate two distinct yet related issues. The first is the connection between the form of rulemaking (e.g., legislation versus technocratic regulation) and the means of isolating monetary policy decisions from political influence. The second is the role of the monetary regime in mediating value. Both the gold standard and the managed flexibility regime aim to shield money from partisan intervention, but they do so in different ways; attention to the legal framework sheds light on how these differing regimes pursue the goal of insulating money from politics.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Kreitner on The Jurisprudence of Global Money
CFP: Vietnam conference, State Department Historian's Office
The first day’s program will include the following: a keynote address by a senior official of the Department of State; a roundtable discussion by Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon-Ford Administration policy advisors on Vietnam; presentations by scholars from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; and a panel of presentations by senior scholars of the War. The second day’s program will consist of a series of panels where academic and independent scholars will present papers on topics/themes related directly or indirectly to American policy in Indochina from 1946 to 1975.
Those interested in submitting proposals should keep in mind that the Program Committee will be more likely to form panels by historical period than by theme, but the latter will be considered.
To achieve the above objectives, the Program Committee welcomes proposals for original papers/panels dealing with, but not limited to, the following
topics:
● Early United States involvement in Southeast Asia: Truman to Kennedy
● The Americanization of the Vietnam War-policy, strategy, and operations
● United States relationships with and/or involvement in South Vietnamese governments
● The role of force and diplomacy in the implementation of policy
● The air war against North Vietnam
● Vietnamese Communists’ approaches to the war
● The influence of non-governmental players-e.g., the media, the anti-war movement-on policy and public opinion
● Intelligence and policy
● Pacification and nation-building in South Vietnam
● Embassy Saigon and the implementation of United States policy in South Vietnam
● Explanations for the outcome of the Vietnam War
● The legacy of the Vietnam War for American military and foreign policies
Paper and panel proposals (abstracts and curricula vitae) must be in English, which is the language of the conference, and should be sent, via e-mail or fax, by March 1, 2010 to:
Dr. John M. Carland, Program Committee Chair, Office of the Historian:
email: vietnamconference@state.gov
fax: 202.663.1289
Hat tip: H-Diplo.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Courthouse History, Maryland Style
More.Built in 1824, the Anne Arundel County Courthouse has been expanded three times over the years to dominate an entire city block off Church Circle in Annapolis.Circuit Court judges have set legal precedents there in such areas as slavery, voter's rights and historic preservation. But until now, there was no place in the courthouse to memorialize that history.
"As wonderful as this courthouse is, and I think it is marvelous ... I've always thought that component was missing," Circuit Court Judge Nancy Davis-Loomis said Thursday at the grand opening of the courthouse's new museum. The museum's first permanent exhibit, called "Crossroads of the Community," focuses on the courthouse's place at the center of life in the county - both physically and figuratively.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Mayeri on A New E.R.A. or a New Era? Admendment Advocacy and the Reconstruction of Feminism
constitution of Feminism. It appears in the Northwestern University Law Review. Here's the abstract:Scholars have largely treated the reintroduction of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) after its ratification failure in 1982 as a mere postscript to a long, hard-fought, and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to enshrine women’s legal equality in the federal constitution. This Article argues that “ERA II” was instead an important turning point in the history of legal feminism and of constitutional amendment advocacy. Whereas ERA I had once attracted broad bipartisan support, ERA II was a partisan political weapon exploited by advocates at both ends of the ideological spectrum. But ERA II also became a vehicle for feminist reinvention. Congressional consideration of ERA II forced feminists to rethink their objectives and strategies, and ultimately to reconstruct their legal and political agendas. Having achieved the eradication of most of the overt sex-based classifications that had been ERA I’s primary targets, amendment proponents focused on developing a coherent doctrinal approach to laws and policies that exerted a disproportionately negative impact on women. As they attempted to negotiate the competing demands of their own aspirations and a political climate hostile to the creation of new rights, women’s rights advocates confronted thorny constitutional questions, including the relationship between the ERA and abortion, private institutions, and affirmative action. The campaign for ERA II set the stage for a new phase in American legal feminism: one which aspired to substantive equality, recognized the limitations of amendment advocacy, and eschewed the expedient separation of reproductive freedom from constitutional sex equality. ERA II not only epitomized the scope and limitations of feminists’ success in transforming the law and of constitutional amendment advocacy as an instrument of change, but also laid the groundwork for a new era in feminist constitutionalism.
Helmholz and Sellar on the Comparative History of Legal Presumptions
The law of presumptions has never been popular among commentators. It has attracted few scholars, and most of the few who have ventured into the subject have come away as critics rather than admirers. Certainly, there are plausible reasons for this bad reputation. Presumptions are evidently inferior to more direct forms of proof; indeed they may not be forms of proof at all. They raise difficulties of definition and classification. Some presumptions also seem quite artificial, hard to defend as reliable indicators of the truth.The contents are as follows:Despite their poor reputation, they have long been accepted and applied in practice. Legal presumptions play a part in virtually all Western legal systems. It is hard to image a workable law of proof without them, and their acceptance has been a fact of life for many centuries. Even in England, where the use of juries in the common law might seem to have excluded any need for legal presumptions, they took hold from an early date. They thus seem to be a natural candidate for comparative historical treatment. The essays in this volume seek to address this gap in scholarship.
The essays do not set out directly to rehabilitate the law of presumptions. They seek rather to explore the process by which presumptions worked their way into Western law and to examine the links that have existed between legal systems. The essays embrace not only English common law and Continental systems, but also 'mixed systems' like the law of Scotland and of Southern Africa. By examining the subject from an historical point of view, they seek to help explain the acceptance and persistence of a law of presumptions in Western law.
R. H. Helmholz and W. D. H. Sellar, Presumptions in Comparative Legal History
Part One: Continental Traditions
A. Giuliani, Civilian Treatises on Presumptions, 1580-1620
K. W. Nörr, On the Early History of Prima Facie Evidence in German Law
C. H. van Rhee, Presumptions in Dutch Private Law (19th and 20th Centuries) within a European Context
F. Migliorino, The Night Bird of Minerva. On to Truth and Evidence in the Turning Point of Modernity
Part Two: English Traditions
D. J. Seipp, Presumptions in Early English Common Law
R. H. Helmholz, The Law of Presumptions and the English Ecclesiastical Courts
B. Shapiro, Presumptions and Circumstantial Evidence in the Anglo-American Legal Tradition, 1500-1900
T. P. Gallanis, Death by Disaster: Anglo-American Presumptions, 1766-2006
Part Three: Mixed Systems
W. D. H. Sellar, Presumptions in Scots Law
J. du Plessis, Presumptions in South African Law: An Historical Perspective
Hat tip: Comparative Law Blog
Supreme Guidance
Christmas came early this year when my father sent me an attractive pocket calendar for 2010, embossed with the Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States, from the Supreme Court Historical Society’s gift shop. I plan to use it but not necessarily to heed all the epigrams that adorn its week-at-a-glance views. The advice for the week of August 2-8 in particular struck me as a little dubious, under the circumstances: “You should live your own life and live up to your own expectations.” The author? Tiger Woods.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
CFP: Comparative Perspectives on Constitutions
Hat tip: Comparative Law Blog.
The W G Hart Legal Workshop 2010 will explore theoretical and empirical aspects of national constitutions (including instruments such as Basic Laws and ‘constitutional statutes’), regional constitutional instruments, and international instruments of a ‘constitutional’ nature. Particular emphasis will be placed on questions concerning the purposes of constitutions, the extent to which such conceptualisations are given expression in the drafting of constitutional texts, and the means by which methods, techniques and institutional innovations are traded across jurisdictions. Proposals for papers or panels that fall within the framework of these themes are welcomed.
The committee especially welcomes contributions from early career researchers and papers of a cross-disciplinary nature. All papers will be posted on the workshop website. Subsequently, the organising committee intends to seek publication of a selection of these papers in more permanent form.
The themes include:
1. Conceptualisations of the purposes of constitutions
2. Transplants, Irritations, Migrations, Harmonization
3. Constructing Constitutions
Abstracts of papers should be sent to Belinda Crothers at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies by email attachment by January 14th 2010. (Belinda.Crothers@sas.ac.uk)
Monday, December 14, 2009
Sugarman on Robert Stevens' Journey Through Lawyers and the Courts
Brian Abel-Smith and Robert Stevens’ Lawyers and the Courts (LATC), published in 1967, was the first major critical social history of the English legal system from the industrial revolution to modern times (1750-1965). It has proved matchless. It is the definitive book in the field, and its core arguments remain largely unchallenged more than forty years after its publication. Challenging the dominant traditions of doctrinal legal scholarship and lawyers’ legal history by emphasising the importance of serious empirical research on current problems, it offered a less reverential alternative to the prevailing orthodoxies of the day and asked whether England’s legal services and legal education had developed in a way that best served the public interest. This paper examines how and why LATC came to be written, its reception and its larger significance. It addresses Robert Stevens’ intellectual trajectory, thereby, providing a window on the history of legal education and thought in England during the 1950’s and ‘60’s and the significance of the United States and Africa to those dissatisfied with England’s dominant tradition of legal formalism. It demonstrates both the coercive structures by which the legal profession sought to silence criticism of the status quo and some of the ways in which Stevens’ projects and ideas for realizing them are still important for the education of present day lawyers, scholars and law reformers. Part One begins with a brief overview of the principal arguments and concerns of LATC. Parts Two and Three seek to historicize LATC. Part Two places Stevens in the context of the personal and intellectual influences of his formative years, 1940-65, and relevant legal-political preoccupations: including the importance of history to his thinking; his disappointment with Oxford legal education; the confines of English legal scholarship, the legal profession and legal culture; the excitement of American legal education and legal practice, in particular, his postgraduate studies at Yale Law School and his encounter with Myres McDougall (1906-1998) and post-Realism; the importance of his experience of teaching at the University of East Africa in Dar es Salaam; and the vital influence of Richard Titmuss (1907–1973) and Brian Abel-Smith (1926-1996), two pioneering British social policy researchers, leading policy advisors and chroniclers of and campaigners against social injustice. Part Three links Stevens’ work to England in the heady days of the early-mid 1960’s, a period when change, and the possibility of effecting political, cultural and social change, was “in the air”. Part Four considers LATC’s controversial reception when it was published in 1967 and seeks to clarify why it encountered fierce opposition and the intellectual tradition that LATC reflected, sustained and promoted. The concluding section briefly considers LATC’s impact on and significance for the fields of legal history and
legal services. This essay makes extensive use of interviews with Robert Stevens and archival research and is published in a special issue of the International Journal of the Legal Profession on the work of Robert Stevens, the other contributors being: Richard Abel, Tony Bradney, Fiona Cownie, Bill Felstiner, Alan Paterson and William Twining.
Felix Frankfurter, Eustace Seligman, and the Securities Act of 1933
As it happened, I was rummaging around in Felix Frankfurter’s correspondence on the Securities Act of 1933 a few days before the House of Representatives passed its comprehensive bill reforming the nation’s financial sector. I already knew from the thoroughly researched studies of Michael Parrish, Joel Seligman, Joseph Lash, and Robert Thompson and Adam Pritchard that Frankfurter believed the corporate bar had advised investment bankers to postpone new issues to build up pressure to amend the statute. This “capital strike” confirmed the Harvard law professor’s longstanding belief in the selfishness of New York’s legal titans, for whom “big money was the big thing.” The “charge against the Act is what we used to call, in our days at Harvard, ‘hogwash,’” he declared to George A. Brownell of Davis, Polk & Wardwell. “There isn’t a particle of doubt that lawyers of responsibility and high standing have infused clients with fears and, worse than that--I know what I am talking about--actually discouraged clients, at times, from doing any financing for the present, so that the campaign against the Act, when Congress next meets, should show that the Act had prevented financing.”
Even so, I was surprised when I looked up some of Parrish’s footnotes and read Frankfurter’s correspondence with corporate lawyers during and after the passage of the act. The sharpest exchange was with Eustace Seligman of Sullivan & Cromwell (left). On April 11, 1933, Seligman wrote to Frankfurter that he was pleased to learn that the professor would be helping to prepare a substitute for the unworkable bill drafted by Huston Thompson, a former FTC chairman who, according to Louis Brandeis, had “every quality that makes for a great lawyer , except one . . . brains.” Hard on Seligman’s praise, however, was a slight: Frankfurter, the Wall Streeter opined, should have someone “who is familiar with the practical operation of securities selling” review his bill to ensure that it was workable “in practical operation and not hamper legitimate business.” Frankfurter let this condescension pass unremarked in his acknowledgment of Seligman's letter.A fortnight later, after Sam Rayburn had introduced the bill drafted by Frankfurter’s proteges Benjamin Cohen, Thomas Corcoran, and James Landis without first showing it to a Wall Streeter, Seligman sorrowfully announced to Frankfurter his regret that the young drafters had produced such a punitive measure. “When I was at law school I shared the view that Wall Street bankers were wicked people and that if they sold me a security that went down in value, they should be personally liable,” Seligman wrote. After many years working on securities issues, he had come to very different conclusions. The sale of no commodity was “attended by greater care and precautions than that of securities,” he now maintained. “Bankers of standing and of financial responsibility have in every case that I have had any connection with gone to the extreme caution to insure that the circular was correct and complete.” Seligman closed by again urging Frankfurter to get “the viewpoint of a practicing” Wall Street lawyer, because it “would add something even to the viewpoint of a Harvard professor.”
This time Frankfurter hit back. He accused Seligman of “insouciance” in assuming that none of the drafters had practical experience of securities issues. (As a junior at Cotton & Franklin, Corcoran had handled many bond issues for Dillon, Reed; Cohen had many, somewhat shadowy adventures of his own on Wall Street in the Twenties.) To Seligman’s encomium for his banker-clients, Frankfurter sarcastically replied, “What a pity that you have not been connected with all security issues, for then there would be no need for any corrective legislation on the subject.”
After acknowledging that “my reply will probably irritate you as much as your letter did me,” Seligman returned fire. He enclosed an associate’s analysis of the house bill detailing mistakes that “any intelligent draftsman” should have avoided. He scoffed at the notion that, “if the House bill had been law for the past ten years, the great losses incurred by investors in recent years would have been appreciably reduced.” Frankfurter’s implication “that many bankers’ circulars issued in recent years have been fraudulent” lacked “the slightest factual basis.”
This brought another riposte from Frankfurter, and another sorrowful reply from Seligman. “I am a sadder but a wiser man,” the Sullivan & Cromwell lawyer wrote on May 15. “I had hoped notwithstanding what I had heard from mutual acquaintances to the contrary, that it might be possible to conduct an objective discussion with you on a matter where we did not entirely agree. I realize that this is not the case and that you prefer personalities and invective to reasoned arguments.”
In the summer of 1933, Seligman wrote to Frankfurter again, despite “the very unfair tone of your letters to me this spring,” to complain that his banker-clients faced “severe liabilities” for want of definite opinions from counsel on the many ambiguities of the securities law (enacted on May 27). He warned that the Wall Streeters would seek amendments at the next session of Congress. “I hope that you will be willing to cooperate in this process,” he closed, “as I really feel that the responsibility upon you for having fathered the existing Act is such that it must keep you awake at night very frequently.”
Frankfurter rejoined that he was sleeping well, that the statute’s ambiguities could and should be resolved against the issuers, dealers and underwriters of securities, and that Seligman’s difficulties with the act went not to its drafting but its underlying principles and assumptions. He observed that the Sullivan & Cromwell lawyer evidently believed that “practical knowledge of large affairs” could be found only in “two or three law offices.”
The exchange left Frankfurter so angry that when his revered mentor Henry Stimson wrote to say the ambiguity of the 1933 act was “one of the key logs in the jam which must be loosened” before business would move normally, he replied with considerable heat. “Leading financial law firms” were attempting “chloroform” the act, Frankfurter complained. The lawyers who, “to their fat profit, ‘passed’” on “the baldest abuses of fiduciary responsibility” now hoped that the public and Congress would forget about their role. Stimson’s partner, a critic of the statute, was “so hardened a laissez-fairist that when it comes to matters of governmental regulation he suffers from astigmatism.” And “those who seek to open the door to amendment of the Act may be getting something from the next Congress that they’re not bargaining for.”
Stimson (right) waited for passions to cool, then responded that Frankfurter’s letter “gave me the impression that for the first time in my years of experience with you there had entered into your mind an element of personal feeling which swung you from the balance of fairness which I have always grown to expect.” The two would patch things up, but not before the quarrel over securities regulation had moved back to Washington. Corcoran, Cohen and Landis battled Seligman and other members of the Wall Street bar as Frankfurter sent encouragement from across the Atlantic and Roosevelt stood on the sideline, awaiting a victor. Ultimately, the corporate bar found in the disclosure regime inaugurated by the 1933 act a new and lucrative practice as well as a needed check on frenzied finance. As the Financial Regulatory Reform Bill moves to Senate, will we see Seligman’s haughtiness or the eventual wisdom of Depression-era Wall Streeters from today’s corporate bar?Image credits: Eustace Seligman, Frankfurter, Stimson
Sunday, December 13, 2009
2009 Best Book Lists (and a worst book list)
Best in nonfiction from the Washington Post are:

FAMILY PROPERTIES: Race, Real Estate, and the Exploitation of Black Urban America, by Beryl Satter. A penetrating examination of financial discrimination. The most important book yet written on the black freedom struggle in the urban North. -- David J. GarrowFrom the New York Times:
HALF THE SKY: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, by Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn. Opens our eyes to an enormous humanitarian issue and does so with exquisitely crafted prose and sensationally interesting material. This is one of the most important books I have ever reviewed. -- Carolyn See
POPS: A Life of Louis Armstrong, by Terry Teachout. An exceptional biography of, in Teachout's lovely phrase, "a major-key artist." -- Louis Bayard
STITCHES: A Memoir, by David Small. A shockingly candid illustrated memoir of one family's legacy of anger and repression and sadism. -- Michael Sims
A STRANGE EVENTFUL HISTORY: The Dramatic Lives of Ellen Terry, Henry Irving, and Their Remarkable Families, by Michael Holroyd. A completely delicious and wickedly entertaining biography of Ellen Terry and Henry Irving, the queen and king of 19th-century English theater. -- Michael Dirda
Top ten in nonfiction from Time Magazine:THE AGE OF WONDER: How the Romantic Generation DiscoTHE GOOD SOLDIERS by David Finkel. Finkel, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and editor at The Washington Post, gives full voice to his subjects, infantry soldiers from Fort Riley, Kan. (average age 19), posted in the lethal reaches of Baghdad at the height of the “surge.” Finkel’s own perspective emerges through spare descriptions — of a roadside bombing or the tortured memories of a single soldier — that capture the harrowing realities of war.vered the Beauty and Terror of Science by Richard Holmes. Holmes harnesses the twin energies of scientific curiosity and poetic invention in this superb intellectual history, which recreates a glorious period, some 200 years ago, when figures like William Herschel, Humphry Davy and Joseph Banks brought “a new imaginative intensity and excitement to scientific work,” and literary giants like Coleridge and Keats responded giddily to these breakthroughs, finding in them an empirical basis for their own faith in human betterment.
LIT: A Memoir by Mary Karr. This sequel to “The Liars’ Club” and “Cherry” is also a master class on the art of the memoir. Mordantly funny, free of both self-pity and sentimentality, Karr describes her attempts to untether herself from her troubled family in rural Texas, her development as a poet and writer, and her struggles to navigate marriage and young motherhood even as she descends into alcoholism.
LORDS OF FINANCE: The Bankers Who Broke the World by Liaquat Ahamed. The parallels with our own moment are impossible to miss in Ahamed’s narrative about four members of “the most exclusive club in the world,” central bankers who dominated global finance in the post-World War I era. Ahamed, a longtime investment manager, evokes in glittering detail a volatile time of financial bubbles followed by busts, all of it guided by players wedded to economic orthodoxy.
RAYMOND CARVER: A Writer’s Life by Carol Sklenicka. Ten years in the making, this prodigiously researched and meticulous biography sympathetically and adroitly integrates its subject’s work with the turbulent life — marred by alcoholism, financial turmoil and family discord — that brought it into being. Sklenicka shrewdly deconstructs Carver’s fraught relationship with Gordon Lish, the editor who played an outsize role in the creation of Carver’s stories, the most influential of a generation.
The Age of Wonder by Richard HolmesThe Sunday Times (UK) has a list of best history books, including its history book of the year: Finest years: Churchill as Warlord 1940-45 by Max Hastings.
D-Day by Antony Beevor
Lit by Mary Karr
Changing My Mind by Zadie Smith
The Lords of Finance by Liaquat Ahamed
Logicomix by Apostolos Doxiadis, Christos H. Papadimitriou, Alecos Papadatos and Annie Di Donna
Manhood for Amateurs by Michael Chabon
Strength In What Remains by Tracy Kidder
Cooking Dirty by Jason Sheehan
John Cheever: A Life by Blake Bailey
But over at The Guardian blog (UK), Sam Jordison complains about the "relentless positivity" of best book lists. It is "always unrealistic," he writes, "given the misery of mortality and the continuing stupidity of most of our species, but it seems especially wrong in the decade of Tony Blair, George Bush, September 11, global warming and global recession." It also "distorts the historical record. To remember only achievement and worth is to ignore the vast majority of our cultural experience."
On Jordison's list of worst books of the decade, he finds it "hard to avoid mentioning Dan Brown. The astonishing sales of The Da Vinci Code prove conclusively that 80 million people most certainly can be wrong." Continue reading, and get that bad book off your chest, here.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Whittow reviews Bisson, The Crisis of the Twelfth Century: Power, Lordship, and the Origins of European Government
Press, 2009) is reviewed by Mark Whittow, Corpus Christi College, on H-Albion. Hat tip: H-Law. Whittow writes: This is a wonderful and important book. It is the fruit of a long lifetime studying medieval history, and as such an encouragement to the rest of us. More than seventy years a historian, Thomas Bisson only gets sharper, more engaged, and more wide-ranging. The Bisson of the early 1960s was a distinguished historian; half a century later he has become one of the leading interpreters of the central medieval West, and in this book he has given a shape to how we are to see the twelfth century that will no doubt dominate the scholarship of the twenty-first in much the same way that Haskins and Southern dominated most of the twentieth. It is a remarkable achievement.
The Crisis of the Twelfth Century holds few surprises, but that is no criticism, and indeed explains much of its likely impact. Its key themes, the central and lasting importance of lordship in western Europe, the ungovernmental nature of many aspects of medieval polities, and the significance of the late twelfth century in terms of the emergence of what would become a political society, or perhaps one might say a society with politics, are for most scholars uncontroversial. There was a time when historians enthused about twelfth-century government and the medieval origins of the modern state, but we have all become more sophisticated. Far from being out on a limb, The Crisis of the Twelfth Century lies on a main route of current thinking, with prominent traffic that includes Matthew Innes's skepticism about the Carolingian state, expressed most fully in State and Society in the Early Middle Ages: The Middle Rhine Valley, 400-1000 (2000), the late Rees Davies's 2003 paper, "The Medieval State: The Tyranny of a Construct?" in the Journal of Historical Sociology, and most recently John Watts's The Making of Polities: Europe, 1300-1500 (2009). All share a view of the central Middle Ages where power is principally affective rather than institutionalized, where talk of the state is anachronistic until the thirteenth century, even if glimmers of state-like behavior appear in the late twelfth, and where the key phenomenon of power is lordship. In 1994 when Bisson argued the case for "The 'Feudal Revolution'" in Past and Present, the responses that followed in later issues of the same journal made him appear out of step with his peers, but now much the same arguments express something close to a widely held consensus. I suspect this will have given him a certain wry pleasure.
Of course Bisson is not simply saying what others are saying. He remains untypical, for example, in the degree of his stress on the arbitrary and violent nature of lordly power.
Government and Markets
Of special interest to historians are “From 'state interference' to the 'return to the market': the rhetoric of economic regulation from the old Gilded Age to the New” by Mary O. Furner; “Prospects for economic 'self-regulation' in the United States: an historian's view from the early twenty-first century” by Edward J. Balleisen; “Deregulation theories in a litigious society: American antitrust and tort” by Tony Freyer; and "The Paranoid Style in the Study of American Politics" by David Moss and Mary Oey. Other essays with a strongly historical orientation include the sociologist Neil Fligstein's “Lessons from Europe: Some Reflections on the European Union and the Regulation of Business”; the economics graduate student Jessica Leight's “Public Choice: A Critical Reassessment”; and the political scientist Marc Allen Eisner's “Markets in the Shadow of the State: An Appraisal of Deregulation and Implications for Future Research.”After two generations of emphasis on governmental inefficiency and the need for deregulation, we now see growing interest in the possibility of constructive governance, alongside public calls for new, smarter regulation. Yet there is a real danger that regulatory reforms will be rooted in outdated ideas. As the financial crisis has shown, neither traditional market failure models nor public choice theory, by themselves, sufficiently inform or explain our current regulatory challenges. Regulatory studies, long neglected in an atmosphere focused on deregulatory work, is in critical need of new models and theories that can guide effective policy-making. This interdisciplinary volume points the way toward the modernization of regulatory theory. Its essays by leading scholars move past predominant approaches, integrating the latest research about the interplay between human behavior, societal needs, and regulatory institutions. The book concludes by setting out a potential research agenda for the social sciences.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Lauriat on Charles Reade and the Drama of Victorian Dramatic Copyright
The following article describes the eccentric dramatist, novelist, journalist, and barrister Charles Reade’s direct involvement in shaping the UK law of copyright - particularly copyright in dramatic works. In addition to publishing his writings on the subject, he was active in bringing and supporting suits that led directly to changes in the law protecting dramatic works, as well as the formation of the Royal Commission on Copyright in 1875. His own questionable dealings with the works of others, however, provide a counterpoint to his zealous arguments in favor of protection, as exemplified by the story of his dramatization of Ralph the Heir, a novel written by Royal Commission member Anthony Trollope.
Pope on the Involuntary Servitude Clause
The Supreme Court has yet to adopt and apply a standard for assessing labor rights claims under the involuntary servitude clause. This article suggests that one may be found in the leading decision of Pollock v. Williams (1944), which contains the Court’s most thorough discussion of the interpretive issues. Under Pollock, a claimed right should be protected if it is necessary to provide workers with the “power below” and employers the “incentive above” to prevent “a harsh overlordship or unwholesome conditions of work.” Although this is not the only conceivable standard, it does fit well with the text, history, and case law of the Amendment. The absence of any racial element, which might appear dishonest in light of the fact that most of the leading cases involved workers of color, nevertheless corresponds to the original meaning and appears to have important advantages from a doctrinal point of view. The article discusses the legal and philosophical justifications of various labor rights in relation to the Pollock standard, including the right to quit, the right to change employers, the right to name the wages for which one is willing to work, and the right to strike.
O'Malley on Bentham
Image creditJeremy Bentham is associated in criminology with his invention of the 'Panopticon.' In many ways this appeared as the quintessential disciplinary institution, training subjects to be 'docile' and obedient. Yet Bentham's classical criminology also stressed that actors are rational choice optimisers, and are to be seen as inventive and enterprising rather than servile and mindless. In part, the overemphasis on the Panopticon leads modern criminologists ignore this side of his thinking and to see Bentham as narrowly punitive and disciplinary. But in his later years he turned toward 'pecuniary sanctions', fines and damages, that he regarded as the optimal liberal sanction. Bentham outlined many of the advantages of monetary justice, and advocated their use in relation to almost every crime, in place of the more usual punishments. This chapter suggests a need to reconsider the contribution of Bentham to criminology and penology in terms of such later works and ideas rather than his advocacy of the Panopticon alone.
Routledge writes that the work in which the essay appears, Fifty Key Thinkers in Criminology, "brings the history of criminological thought alive through a collection of fascinating life stories. The book covers a range of historical and contemporary thinkers from around the world, offering a stimulating combination of biographical fact with historical and cultural context. A rich mix of life-and-times detail and theoretical reflection is designed to generate further discussion on some of the key contributions that have shaped the field of criminology." Its essays take up Cesare Beccaria; Howard Becker; Jeremy Bentham; Willem Bonger; John Braithwaite; Susan Brownmiller; Pat Carlen; Bill Chambliss; Meda Chesney-Lind; Nils Christie; Ron Clarke; Albert Cohen; Stan Cohen; Richard Cloward; Donald Cressey; Elliott Currie; W. E. B. DuBois; Emile Durkheim; David Farrington; Enrico Ferri; Michel Foucault; David Garland; Erving Goffman; Eleanor Glueck/the Gluecks; Stuart Hall; Frances Heidensohn; Travis Hirschi; Louk Hulsman; John Irwin; Peter Kropotkin; Ed Lemert; Cesare Lombroso; Joan McCord; Karl Marx; Thomas Mathiesen; David Matza; Robert Merton; Walter Miller; Rosa del Olmo; Robert Park; Adolphe de Quetelet; Robert Sampson; The Schwendingers; Thorstein Sellin; Clifford Shaw; Carol Smart; Edwin Sutherland; Gresham Sykes; James Q Wilson; Jock Young.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
CFP: Policy History Conference
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION: December 30, 2009
The Journal of Policy History and the Institute for Political History are accepting panel and paper proposals for the sixth biennial Policy History Conference, to be held June 3-6, 2010 in Columbus, Ohio. The conference provides an interdisciplinary forum for academics and policy experts from political science, history, economics, law, and sociology to present their latest research. The 2010 Conference features three outstanding plenary sessions:
A State of War: U.S. Military History as Policy History-Roundtable, with Beth Bailey, Temple University; Bartholomew Sparrow, University of Texas; Peter Mansoor, Mershon Center/Ohio State University; Stephen Ortiz, Bowling Green State University; and Jonathan Winkler, Wright State University.
American Economic Crises in Historical Perspective, with Michael Bernstein, Tulane University; Robert A. Collins, University of Missouri; Monica Prasad, Northwestern University; David M. Hart, George Mason University; and David Robertson, University of Missouri, St.
Louis.
Media and Politics-Roundtable, with Richard John, Columbia University; James Fallows, The Atlantic Monthly; and Paul Starr, Princeton University.
We are currently accepting proposals on all topics concerning political and policy history, American political development, and comparative historical analysis. We welcome interdisciplinary panels on both international and domestic policy issues spanning the 18th through the 21st centuries. Complete sessions are encouraged, but individual paper proposals are welcome. The deadline for proposals is December 30, 2009.
Proposals should include a Panel/Paper Description and Contact Information Page, downloadable from our website; a one-page summary of each paper; and a one-page c.v. for each panelist. Please send the materials to Policy History Conference, Journal of Policy History, Saint Louis University, 3800 Lindell Blvd., P. O. Box 56907, St. Louis, MO 63156-0907.
For more info, visit our website or write to the conference coordinator at: policyhistoryconference@gmail.com.
CFP: Times of Crisis, Times of Change: Human Stories on the Edge of Transformation
Call for Papers
Sheraton Hotel Downtown
The theme of the 2010 annual meeting of the Oral History Association is inspired by the times in which we are living and the setting for our conference. Atlanta, Georgia is an historic city, one defined by a vibrant and sometimes contested history of activism for civil and human rights. Moreover, it is also a city which has been transformed by waves of rural to urban migration, immigration, urbanization, and changes in the global economy, all of which have produced crisis, real or imagined, in Atlanta’s complex network of local communities. Taking a cue from this dynamic setting, and focusing on the use of oral history to reconstruct stories of/in crisis and change, we ask: How have people struggled and survived in times of crisis? How do people create change and bear witness to it? How do they construct their stories of these moments? In what ways have stories of crisis and change shaped public memories of pivotal historical eras? How do we reconcile contradictory stories of crisis and change?
The Program Committee welcomes broad and diverse interpretations of the conference theme as reflected in proposals for panels, individual papers, performances, exhibits and roundtables. We especially encourage presenters to think about non-traditional delivery models, such as interactive sessions, dialogic formats that engage audience, and use of digital media. Presenters are reminded to incorporate voice and image in their presentations. OHA is open to proposals from the variety of fields traditionally represented in our meetings, including history, folklore, literature, sociology, anthropology, American & ethnic studies, cultural studies, political science, information science and technology, communications, and urban studies. In recognition of the important work taking place outside the United States, we also hope to have a significant international presence at the meeting. Limited partial funding is available for International presenters. And, as always, OHA welcomes proposals from independent scholars, community activists and organizers, archivists, librarians, museum curators, web designers, documentary producers, media artists, ethnographers, public historians, and all practitioners whose work is relevant to this meeting’s interest in narratives of crisis and change.
Proposal format: For full sessions, submit a title, a session abstract of not more than two pages, and a one-page vita or resume for each participant. For individual proposals, submit a one-page abstract and a one-page vita or resume of the presenter. Each submission must be accompanied by a cover sheet, which can be downloaded.
The deadline for submission of all proposals is Friday, January 15, 2010. All proposals should be submitted via email to oha@dickinson.edu, or if available, through the online submission page on the OHA website, at http://www.oralhistory.org/. The Cover Sheet and all proposal documents must be combined into one attachment in Microsoft WORD format. Please do not send the documents as separate attachments. If you do not receive email confirmation by January 29, 2010, please contact the OHA office to make sure your submission has been received.
Proposal queries may be directed to:
David A. Reichard, California State University Monterey Bay, 2010 Program Co-Chair: david_reichard@csumb.edu
TomĂ¡s F. Summers Sandoval, Pomona College, 2010 Program Co-Chair: tfss@pomona.edu
Rina Benmayor, California State University Monterey Bay, 2010-11 OHA President: rina_benmayor@csumb.edu
For submission queries or more information, contact:
Madelyn Campbell, Executive SecretaryOral History AssociationDickinson College, P. O. Box 1773Carlisle, PA 17013Telephone (717) 245-1036 Fax: (717) 245-1046Email: oha@dickinson.edu
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Maltz on Slavery and the U.S. Supreme Court
Here are the blurbs:During America’s turbulent antebellum era, the Supreme Court decided important cases—most famously Dred Scott—that spoke to sectional concerns and shaped the nation’s response to the slavery question. Much scholarship has been devoted to individual cases and to the Taney Court, but this is the first comprehensive examination of the major slavery cases that came before the Court between 1825 and 1861.
Earl Maltz presents a detailed analysis of all eight cases and explains how each fit into the slavery politics of its time, beginning with The Antelope, heard by the John Marshall Court, and continuing with the seven other cases taken before the Roger Taney Court: The Amistad, Groves v. Slaughter, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, Strader v. Graham, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Ableman v. Booth, and Kentucky v. Denison.
Case by case, Maltz identifies the political and legal forces that shaped each of the judicial outcomes while clarifying the evolution of the Court’s slavery-related jurisprudence. He reveals the beliefs of each justice about the morality of slavery and the judicial role in constitutional cases to show how their actions were determined by a complex interaction of political and doctrinal considerations. Thus he offers a more nuanced understanding of the antebellum federal judiciary, showing how the decision in Prigg hinged on views about federalism as well as attitudes toward human freedom, while the question of which slaves were freed in The Antelope depended more on complex fact-finding than on a condemnation of the slave trade. Maltz also challenges the view that the Taney Court simply mirrored Southern interests and argues that, despite Dred Scott, the overall record of the Court was not particularly proslavery.
Although the progression of the Court’s decisions reflects a change in the tenor of the conflict over slavery, the aftermath of those decisions illustrates the limits of the Court’s ability to change the dynamic that governed political struggles over such divisive issues. As the first accessible account of all of these cases, Slavery and the Supreme Court, 1825–1861 underscores the Court’s limited capability to resolve the intractable political conflicts that sharply divided our nation during this period.
“This is legal history as it should be: dispassionate, doctrinally sophisticated, and deeply rooted in political context. It will become the standard against which are measured all other studies of the High Court’s slavery cases.”—Peter Charles Hoffer, coauthor of The Supreme Court: An Essential History
“Maltz sensitively combines legal analysis with attention to the political environment in which the Court operated. Everyone interested in antebellum law and politics will profit from his work.”—Mark Tushnet, author of Slave Law in the American South
“A concise, understandable, and insightful overview.”—Michael Les Benedict, author of The Blessings of History: A Concise History of the Constitution of the United States
“Maltz’s account is lucid and nuanced, his judgments are always thoughtful and measured, and his insights are grounded in a sure understanding of the interplay among law, politics, and judging. While some will disagree with his interpretations, every serious scholar in the field must take them into account.”—Donald G. Nieman, author of Promises to Keep: African Americans and the Constitutional Order, 1776 to the Present
“Comprehensive, scholarly, and lucid, Maltz’s book succeeds admirably in synthesizing and interpreting the vast literature on the Supreme Court’s fateful encounter with slavery, culminating in Dred Scott v. Sandford. A most welcome addition to the field.”—R. Kent Newmyer, author of The Supreme Court under Marshall and Taney
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
CFP: Law, Society, and Culture in Germany
German Studies Association
Oakland, California, October 7-10, 2010
Hat tip: H-Law
For the 2010 German Studies Association meeting in Oakland,California, we will be convening a series of panels on matters legal.We envisage a broad set of topics, from the development of specific legal practices and cultures in Germany to the function of law in wider cultural fields; from theories of law and the emergence of the so-called Rechtstaat to the development of business law and legal integration in the nineteenth century. From the philosophy of law to the legal cultures and literatures that extend from medieval to modern periods, these panels are intended to foster an extended conversation on the law across humanities and social science disciplines. We encourage submissions from scholars in all aspects of the law, and are especially interested in both methodological and temporal breadth.
The deadline for submissions is February 1, 2010. For queries and submissions, please contact:
Professor Timothy Guinnane, Economics, Yale University(timothy.guinnane@yale.edu)
Professor Jonathan Sheehan, History, University of California, Berkeley (sheehan@berkeley.edu)
The full call for papers is here.
The History of International Law: A Continental Perspective
The second is Sister Republics: Power and Law in Revolutionary Europe:This paper examines the views of the Dutch lawyer and philologist Cornelis van Vollenhoven (1874-1933) on how to study law and international law in particular. Van Vollenhoven assessed that international law was in a state of uncertainty and inchoateness which it was the lawyer’s obligation to transcend. Since most textbooks, with or without good reason, fail to mention him, Van Vollenhoven is one of those striking personalities one is likely to have heard about as an international legal historian but who remains nothing but a casual acquaintance nonetheless. This paper primarily sets out to elaborate on Van Vollenhoven’s ontological and epistemological views on international law thus shedding light on some aspects of his thought and writings that have not received the attention they deserve yet. Van Vollenhoven was both involved in scholarly work on international law and left behind various publications on legal methodology. The scholar willing to dig into his collected writings comes across a rather eclectic and hence probably unique though not highly original approach to the study of law. His endevour to classify jurisprudence among the exact sciences combined with some of his political positions on international order and the law of the Dutch East Indies resulted in an empiricist, evolutionist, and institutionalist perspective according to which a scientific approach to international law boils down to the combination of three methods: a systematic, a historical, and a comparative one. This paper aims at providing a sketch of that approach.
The French Revolution provoked the revival of Franco-Austrian and gave a new boost to Franco-British rivalry. Both conflicts encouraged the French Republic to bring the second and third rank powers of Western Europe within its sphere of influence. This paper sets out to address the implications of this strategy for interstate legal relations. One of the answers to no longer being able to balance Austria and Russia in the east was for France to set out for hegemony in the west by annexing the Austrian Netherlands and the Rhineland, and by creating a chain of ‘sister republics’ along its borders, that is, in the Low Countries, Switzerland, and Italy. This paper addresses whether the principles and rules of a legal order of independence and equality were upheld. What role did law and legal arguments play in the relations between France and its sister republics? How did the French exercise their hegemony? The paper elaborates on one specific case - negotiations on the 1795 Treaty of The Hague between France and the Batavian Republic, with particular attention being paid to French territorial demands.Image credit: van Vollenhoven
Monday, December 7, 2009
Nimmer on Copyright in Rabbinic History
One might not expect Moravia of the 1820s to be a hotbed of copyright litigation. But a major dispute unfolded there, pitting two distinguished rabbis against each other, expressing their disparate views of copyright protection under Jewish law. The two figures in question are Mordekhai Banet and Moses Sofer, each regarded as a Torah giant. Yet their views were absolutely opposed, although each purported to apply existing Jewish law precedent to the matter at hand. Historical investigation reveals a surprising "back-story" at work here. This article investigates the dispute, paying particular attention to the works at issue. It exposits some of the mysterious expression articulated by Rabbi Banet in his dispute with Hatam Sofer, and shows how it developed.Also posted is In the Shadow of the Emperor: The Hatam Sofer’s Copyright Rulings, which appears in The Torah u-Madda Journal (2009). Here's the abstract:
This article continues the investigation initiated by the author's Rabbi Banet's Charming Snake. It continues the investigation into copyright litigation of the 1820s, but this time the venue is Slovakia, whose chief rabbi was the legendary Moses Sofer, known as "the seal of the scribes" (Hatam Sofer). The article shows how Hatam Sofer and his adversary, Mordekhai Banet, attempted to vindicate Jewish law at the same time that the forces of Enlightenment gave new impetus to secular authority. The Beit Din (Jewish law court) thus found itself besieged, as a 'judicial arms race" unfolded between religious and secular authorities. The article places this copyright case at the vortex of that struggle. It also shows how the dispute between rabbis of the nineteenth century rehearsed perennial disputes over the nature of copyright protection - disparate points of view that find an analog in England of the nineteenth century, and which continue until today.
Fifty Years after the Sit-Ins
The Center for the Study of Race and Law at the University of Virginia Law School announces the conference "Fifty Years after the Sit-Ins: Reflecting on the Role of Protest in Social Movements and Law Reform." It will be held at the Law School, January 28-30, 2010. Early bird registration closed December 15.Among the scheduled events are the following panels:
The Sit-Ins
This panel will focus on the student sit-ins that were initiated on February 1, 1960, in Greensboro, North Carolina, and spread across the south and nation. The panel will include law professors, historians and civil rights activists who were either personally involved in the sit-in movement or who have studied them. Questions may include what led to the sit-ins, what were their objectives and strategies, and what was their most direct impact.
Tomiko Brown-Nagin, University of Virginia School of Law
J. Gordon Hylton, Marquette University Law School
Brenda Saunders Hampden, Seton Hall University School of Law
Theodore C. Delaney, Washington & Lee University, History Dept.
Social and Legal Developments in the Domestic Sphere
This panel will examine social and legal reform movements in the United States during the last third of the twentieth century. Topics may include movements by ethnic groups other than African-Americans, as well as the women’s rights, gay rights, labor and anti-war movements. Panelists may also address legislative and doctrinal developments influenced by the sit-ins including state and federal civil rights laws, and constitutional law developments concerning, for example, police discretion, state action, substantive due process, equal protection, and free expression.
Taunya Banks, University of Maryland School of Law
Risa Goluboff, University of Virginia School of Law
Darren Hutchinson, American University Washington College of Law
Juan F. Perea, University of Florida Levin College of Law
The International Sphere
This panel will examine the relationship between international and domestic legal change. Panelists may explore how social movements and actors abroad influenced American constitutional and legislative developments, and how domestic social movements informed developments in international law and the law of other nations.
Carol Anderson, Emory University, African American Studies Dept.
Penelope Andrews, Valparaiso University School of Law
H. Timothy Lovelace, University of Virginia (Ph.D. candidate, History Dept.; J.D., M.A.)
Henry J. Richardson, III, Temple University Beasley School of Law
Keynoters include Julian Bond, University of Virginia Professor of History and NAACP Chairperson, and the Rev. Charles Sherrod, Albany State University Professor of Political Science and former SNCC Field Secretary
Hat tip: Legal Scholarship Blog
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Davis reviews Drescher, Abolition, and more in the book pages

Since I have been attempting for over forty years to put slavery in a more global perspective, I could not be more delighted by Seymour Drescher's magisterial new history of both slavery and antislavery from the late Middle Ages to the end of World War II. While we of course differ on a few minor issues, I believe Abolition is the most comprehensive, detailed, and integrated account of its subjects yet to appear, concentrating on the Americas but including fascinating digressions and comparisons that involve much of the rest of the world. The book is encyclopedic, but Drescher is superb at giving frequent overviews of a big picture, charting the expansion and contraction of his subjects over a period of twenty or fifty years. And there are valuable insights, to say nothing of enlightening information, on almost every page.When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present by Gail Collins is reviewed by Cathleen Schine in the New York Review of Books. She finds it a "worthy sequel" to Collins's America's Women: 400 Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates, and Heroines (2003).
In Occupied Paris: The Sweet and the Cruel, also in the NYRB, Ian Buruma reviews several books on World War II-era Paris under occupation.
THE CITIZEN'S CONSTITUTION: An Annotated Guide by Seth Lipsky gets a brief review in the Washington Post.
Among the holiday books getting the nod this week is THE ONION PRESENTS OUR FRONT PAGES: 21 Years of Greatness, Virtue, and Moral Rectitude From America’s Finest News Source, revewed in the New York Times. Other NYT holiday books are here. And the LA Times includes history and biography in their recommended holiday books.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Comments back on
Tress on Felony in the Early American Republic
At common law a felony was a crime that led to forfeiture of the convict’s property. In contemporary American law, a felony is usually defined as a crime that is punished by death, or imprisonment in a specially designated place (prison or penitentiary) or for a designated period of time (more than one year). The attached article examines how that change came about, and fixes the time and place of the re-definition: New York in 1828, during a revision of that state’s statutes. The choice made by the revisors, a compromise between radical reform and adherence to the common law tradition, is placed in the context of two early 19th century reform movements: Codification of the common law, and the founding of the penitentiaries.
How felony is defined - creating more or fewer felonies - gains greater importance in light of the current concern over the collateral consequences of a felony conviction. Looking at how the line between felonies and lesser crimes was originally drawn can offer insight as to where it should be drawn today.
Survival and Discord in Medieval Society
Contributions of potential interest to legal historians include:This book, a tribute to an exceptional scholar known for his broad-ranging interests, brings together the new work of students, friends, and colleagues of Prof. Dyer. The volume reflects his interests in the twin disciplines of history and archaeology and his ground-breaking work in medieval standards of living, social tensions, and town-country relations. The varied and stimulating essays presented in this volume examine a host of critical issues dealing with diet, settlement, employment opportunities, taxation, credit and debt, and the tensions felt in town and country alike which often exploded into full-scale revolt. This new work not only looks at these issues from the standpoint of new evidence and theoretical perspectives, but also imparts a strong sense of the controversy surrounding many of these central issues in medieval history, ranging from how well common people managed to live and reproduce to the nature of their relationships with each other and with their social superiors. The volume, in short, stimulates a vital reconsideration of many of the key concerns pertaining to the study of medieval societies.
"Legacies of failure: Mercian Royal-Episcopal Land Squabbles in the Late Eighth and Early Ninth Centuries" by Steven Bassett (University of Birmingham) . Using the diocese of Worcester as an example and particularly the minster at Hanbury (Worcs), this paper examines tensions generated between Anglo-Saxon kings and the ecclesiastical communities they endowed.
"'Where your treasure is...': The Dean and Chapter of Lichfield and the Peak District of Derbyshire, c. 1400 to c.1535" by Robert Swanson (University of Birmingham). Examining spirituality income from the dean and chapter of Lichfield's peculiar jurisdiction in the Peak District from c.1400 to 1535, this paper will shed new light upon inherent tensions, often associated with clerical greed, in late medieval society.
"The Assize Towns of Medieval England" by James Masschaele (Rutgers University) . This paper will examine the English monarchy's use of towns from the twelfth century onwards to enhance their power over the countryside through the use of royal assize courts.
"Credit and Debt in the Borough Court of the Later Middle Ages" by Richard Goddard (University of Nottingham) . Following upon the groundbreaking work of Christopher Dyer and others, this paper will survey the evidence from borough courts to identify trends in urban credit over the later middle ages.
"Trespass Litigation in the Manor Court” by Phillipp Schofield (University of Wales, Aberystwyth) . This paper will explore the ways in which pleas of trespass developed in the manor court from our earliest court rolls, c. 1250, through to the mid-fourteenth centuryr.
"Monitoring Medieval Demesne Managers through the Manor Court: the Example of Great Eversden, Cambridgeshire, 1382-99" by Chris Briggs (University of Cambridge) . Using court rolls of the small lay manor of Great Eversden from 1382 and 1399, this paper will examine how lords monitored the honesty and efficiency of their estate officials and the tensions to which this gave rise.
"Confrontation and Negotiation in a Medieval Village" by Jean Birrell. This paper will examine the unusual 1341 rental for Alrewas, Staffordshire, which raises interesting questions about the uses of memory; levels of literacy; and about peasant attitudes to documents.
"Dealing with Discord in Fifteenth-century Chester" by Jane Laughton. This paper will investigate the fascinating potential of mainprizes (peace bonds) for revealing social relationships in urban communities like Chester and the attempts to limit social discord.
Image credit: A Manor Court Roll
Friday, December 4, 2009
Call for Papers: Accidental Armageddons: The Nuclear Crisis and the Culture of the Second Cold War, 1975-1989
Conveners: Eckart Conze (University of Marburg), Martin Klimke (German Historical Institute, Washington, D.C.), Jeremy Varon (New School for Social Research, New York City)
Date: November 4-6, 2010
Location: German Historical Institute, Washington, DC
Hat tip: H-Diplo

In the most significant accident in the history of the U.S. nuclear power industry, the reactor at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, suffered a partial core meltdown on March 28, 1979, allowing large amounts of radioactive reactor coolant to escape. Exacerbating the panicked public reaction to this incident was the fact that a popular movie depicting a major nuclear accident, The China Syndrome, had been released only 12 days earlier. Three Mile Island was not only a turning point in public opinion regarding atomic technology but also helped fuse two protest movements together: that against nuclear energy and that against nuclear weapons.
Over the next several years, this combined “anti-nuclear” movement staged mass protests around the globe. On October 10, 1981, in the largest peace demonstration in German history to that point, between 250,000 and 300,000 demonstrators of diverse social, political, and cultural backgrounds gathered in Bonn to voice their opposition to the renewed arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union and the Federal Republic’s role in it. This protest was matched by other mass rallies in Europe and North America. Two weeks later, some 200,000 people assembled in Brussels;on November 21, Amsterdam saw almost 400,000 demonstrators; and on June12, 1982, more than one million people participated in a Nuclear Weapons Freeze demonstration in Central Park and the streets of New York City. In the fall of 1983 alone, about five million people, mostly in Western Europe, took part in demonstrations against the deployment of “EuroMissiles” (Pershing II). Protests stretched as well to Japan and Australia. Anti-nuclear activism even emerged in Eastern European countries, paving the way for greater
political dissent toward the end of the decade. The nuclear disaster in Chernobyl in April 1986 served to intensify the global anti-nuclear movement.The proliferation of the anti-nuclear movement, which entailed the founding of countless national and transnational grassroots organizations,think tanks, and pressure groups, as well as the mass mobilization of people in street protests in diverse countries, was brought about by escalating fears of nuclear annihilation. This new anxiety over a “nuclear holocaust” had several sources, among them concerns raised by the growing environmental movement and heightened public distrust of the peaceful use of nuclear technology. Increased East-West confrontations that departed in alarming ways from the dĂ©tente policies of the previous decade also fueled new worries.
In December 1979, NATO announced its “Double-Track” strategy: If arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union should fail, the West would station intermediate nuclear forces to counterbalance the Soviet Union’s recent deployment of SS-20 mid-range missiles. This momentous decision, alongside the contemporaneous Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, heightened international tensions. Finally, a new brand of conservative leader —embodied in Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Helmut Kohl — came to power in the West, fomenting domestic protest and renewing fears of an actual nuclear war. The world thus moved from an era of reduced tension during the dĂ©tente years of the 1970s to a "Second Cold War" in the 1980s.
Nuclear fears, partly precipitated by scientists’ warnings that even a limited nuclear war could cause an apocalyptic “nuclear winter,” also reverberated within popular culture. The American television movie The Day After (1983), which depicted this doomsday scenario, reached a record audience of 100 million, noticeably impacting leading decision-makers.Anti-nuclear messages abounded: in movies such as War Games (1983) and When the Wind Blows (1986); in Jonathan Schell’s best seller The Fate of the Earth (1982); in songs by David Bowie, The Clash, and the Germansinger Nena; and in all-sta
r concerts accompanying demonstrations. The“Second Cold War,” in sum, entailed a deep and widespread cultural response to new, perceived dangers generated by the renewed nuclear arms race.The first of its kind, the conference “Accidental Armageddons” seeks to explore the political and cultural discourse on nuclear weapons and atomic energy during the Second Cold War. While welcoming myriad approaches, the conference has several core goals:
(1) To explore diplomatic, political, and strategic debates surrounding nuclear armaments and the doctrines governing their possible use.“Traditional” actors, such as the political, diplomatic, and military elites, certainly shaped these debates, but “anti-establishment” forces such as civil society organizations and activist groups also played an important role within them.
(2) To merge “establishment” perspectives with an analyses of protest cultures by looking at non-state actors, grassroots activists, civil society organizations, and artists.
(3) To transcend the traditional East-West divide of the Cold War by examining both sides of the Iron Curtain, the views and activities of those in “non-aligned” countries, and the cooperation of policy makers, organizations, activists, scientists, and intellectuals across borders.
(4) To understand how "ecological" protests against the civilian use of nuclear energy and activism against nuclear weapons converged in a new, comprehensive anti-nuclear movement. That movement, from diverse vantage points, articulated a new and profound critique of the postwar, industrial, and technological modernity that had emerged after 1945.
(5) To establish how nuclear anxiety and fears of environmental apocalypse facilitated the rise of global consciousness and conceptions of global citizenship.
The conference will place special emphasis on the cultural and trans-/international dimensions of nuclear discourse.
Accordingly, we invite proposals on the following topics:
• cultural representations of nuclear weapons, energy, and war in film, literature, the media, and the arts
• the deployment of such representations by protest groups
• the global dimension of both nuclear discourse and the anti-nuclear movement
• public responses to nuclear discourse and the anti-nuclear movement
• national grassroots organizations (e.g., the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, Finland's Committee of 100, Great Britain's Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, America’s Ploughshares)
• transnational protest organizations (e.g., European Nuclear Disarmament, Women for Peace, Pax Christi, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War)
• the ideology and practices of the peace and environmental movements
• individual demonstrations and key activists (e.g., Randall Forsberg, Petra Kelly, the Berrigans, etc.)
• activist and dissident networks between East and West
• security cultures
• government reactions to cultural and political protest
• the efficacy of anti-nuclear protest
• contemporary images of nuclear apocalypse and representations of 80s-era anti-nuclear politics
Please send a paper proposal of no more than 500 words and a brief CV via e-mail to Bärbel Thomas (b.thomas@ghi-dc.org).

The deadline for submission is March 1, 2010. Participants will be notified by the end of March.
The conference, held in English, will focus on the discussion of 5,000–6,000-word, pre-circulated papers (due September 1, 2010).
Expenses for travel and accommodation will be covered, though you may defray organizing costs by soliciting funds from your home institution.
For more information, please contact
Dr. Martin Klimke
German Historical Institute
1607 New Hampshire Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20009-2562
USA
Email: klimke@ghi-dc.org
Twittering legal historians
ce. In this guest post, Josh and Gautham describe how they use Twitter as legal historians, and they include a helpful list of legal history "tweeps."Many folks see Twitter as a flash-in-the-pan fad, primarily attracting narcissists who need broadcast to the world the meaningless minutiae of the quotidian. Critics argue that 140 characters is not enough for a coherent thought. But twitter has become a powerful tool for the sharing of knowledge and news. Legal historians, with access to both legal and historical (and yes, legal-historical) tweets will find insights into current events along with recommendations and links to current scholarship.
We first discussed what became the @lawhistory twitter feed during this summer's Hurst Summer Institute in Madison, Wisconsin. We thought Twitter was neat precisely because it was real-time--it functioned, quite literally, in the moment. With the right search terms and tags (e.g. #Sotomayor) it was possible to monitor discussions about pressing, contemporary legal developments and issues. We thought that the very same, simple tools might allow us to inject history and historical context into these discussions. This has been somewhat true. We have amassed over one-hundred followers who receive a few "tweets" from us every week providing brief historical backgrounds on the day's 'it-issue,' beginning with the Sotomayor nomination in early July, to 'Gates-gate' a month later, to healthcare in September (and beyond).
But we have also found other uses for the @lawhistory feed. One of us (Stein) has found an effective means to showcase an ongoing interest into the history of violence, while the other (Rao) has engaged with inquiries about the state. Stein’s posts tend to broach issues broadly, as open questions. Rao’s posts are typically brief questions with suggestions for further reading. We have also live-tweeted from a few conferences, including the most recent ASLH Annual Meeting in Dallas.What does the future hold? I'm not sure that we have much in the way of an answer. But @lawhistory has been a fun and educational way for us to relate our interest in legal history to a broader audience in an unfiltered forum with global reach. Early adopters of twitter have been waiting for a critical mass of quality tweets. The potential for academic tweeting is enormous; a stream of news and scholarship flows from one’s handpicked sources. Below is a list of “tweeps” worth checking out – but branch out, seek new feeds worth following and then, soon enough, you might find yourself tweeting your ideas to the world, enjoying your perch on a 21st century soapbox.
http://twitter.com/katrinagulliver
who has a wonderful list of “twitterstorians” – here: http://www.katrinagulliver.com/2009/09/twitterstorians.htmlInstitutions:
http://twitter.com/lawlibnewbooks
http://twitter.com/academiclaw
http://twitter.com/GLIAmericanHist
http://twitter.com/NYHistoryHistorians/Academics:
http://twitter.com/feministlawprfs
http://twitter.com/bobambrogi
http://twitter.com/cliotropic
http://twitter.com/jonathanrnash
and of course:
http://twitter.com/legalhistory
Congress and History at the Miller Center, May 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Three by Fineman on Feminism
This chapter, which will be included in Transcending the Boundaries of Law, M.A. Fineman, Ed (Routledge 2010) brings a historical and analytic gaze on the concept of equality in the US legal system. Beginning with the establishment of Portia Law School for women and court decisions like Muller v. Oregon, I discuss the tension between seeking equality as sameness of treatment and seeking positive improvements in the lives of women. While women have officially attained legal equality with men, in terms of being able to vote, practice a profession, and own property among other things, the benefits of citizenship are still distributed in highly unequal ways. In part this is because as a nation Americans value autonomy over equality and thus sacrifice substantive equality in the name of greater independence, ignoring the realities of our shared states of episodic dependency and constant vulnerability.
This chapter is in Feminist and Queer Legal Theory: Intimate Encounters, Uncomfortable Conversations, M.A. Fineman, J. E. Jackson, and A. P. Romero, Eds. (Ashgate 2009). It addresses the construction of the concept of the sexual family both outside of and inside law. The sexual family is the traditional or nuclear family, a unit with a heterosexual, formally celebrated union at its core. I use the term “sexual” to modify “family” to emphasize that our societal and legal images and expectations of family are tenaciously organized around a sexual affiliation between a man and woman. This is the primary intimate connection. Of course, it reflects the reproductive imperative, but this basic biological fact also has important ideological and legal ramifications. The sexual family is considered the “natural” form for the social and cultural organization of intimacy, its form ordained by divine prescription and perpetuated by opinion polls. The sexual family is an entity entitled to protection - granted “privacy” or immunity from substantial state supervision.Also posted is the Introduction to FEMINIST AND QUEER LEGAL THEORY. Here's the abstract:
The reflection of the sexual family that is ensconced in law may be a distortion or a mere fragment of social reality, but that legal image constitutes the legal reality and forms the basis for state regulation. Because this legally constructed image expresses a vision of the appropriately constituted family, it defines the normal and designates the deviant. The characterization of some family groupings as deviant legitimates state intervention and the regulation of relationships well beyond what would be socially tolerated if directed at more traditional family forms.
This essay forms is the introduction to Feminist and Queer Legal Theory: Intimate Encounters, Uncomfortable Conversations, M.A. Fineman, J. E. Jackson, and A. P. Romero, Eds. (Ashgate 2009). The book explores the tensions among feminist and queer theorists. Wendy Brown (UC-Berkeley) states that it is “possibly the most useful theory anthology of the decade.” In the Introduction the intersecting histories of feminist and queer legal theories are considered and the convergences and departures are addressed.
Gallanis on Death by Disaster: Anglo-American Presumptions, 1766-2006

Suppose that two persons, A and B, died in a common disaster. B was the child of A and stood to receive some or all of A's property at A's death. Yet B (and, in turn, B's successors) would only be so entitled if B survived A, at least for an instant. How was a court to determine whether B so survived? This article explores the answers in England and America from 1766 to 2006. Commissioned for a book on The Law of Presumptions: Essays in Comparative Legal History, the article examines the history of the presumptions in Anglo-American law that govern survivorship. The article uses treatises, cases, and legislative records to shed new light on the history, and to explore the resistance at common law to any presumption on the matter - a resistance that was only overcome by legislation in the twentieth century.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Massachusetts Historical Society Fellowships
Application deadlines: MHS-NEH fellowships, January 15, 2010; New England Regional Fellowships, February 1, 2010; MHS Short-Term fellowships, March 1, 2010.
Oman on Legal Interpretation and Mormon Thought
Legal scholars have recently turned their attention to “religious legal theory,” asking what various religious traditions have to say about law and legal practices. While some traditions - such as Islam or Judaism - have well-developed legal traditions, understanding what less juristic faiths have to say about law is more difficult. This article seeks to contribute to this discussion by asking how Mormonism might be used to think about legal questions. Lacking a formal theological or juristic tradition, the article argues that one may nevertheless turn to Mormon practices for insights. Using the adjudication of civil disputes in nineteenth-century church courts as an example, this article develops Mormon theories of property and contract.
Ruskola, Colonialism Without Colonies: On the Extraterritorial Jurisprudence of the U.S. Court of Claims for China
The United States Court for China was created by Congress in 1906, and it was not abolished until 1943. The Shanghai-based court had extraterritorial jurisdiction over all American citizens within its district, known as the “District of China” for jurisdictional purposes. The court is fascinating in its own right, and it produced what one observer has described as a “system of jurisprudence” that was “more complete than that of any [other] body of extraterritorial law.” In this article, I elaborate at some length on the court’s jurisprudence, with a focus on certain conflicts-of-law problems the court had to face. As it turns out, those problems and the context in which they arose open a window onto the colonial history of extraterritorial jurisdiction more generally. In the end, the history of the U.S. Court for China exemplifies a kind of colonialism without colonies. Part I describes in some detail the law applied by the court, which consisted of a mĂ©lange of colonial common law as it existed prior to American independence, general congressional acts, the municipal code of the District of Columbia, and the code of the Territory of Alaska. Apart from the unusual jurisprudence the court produced, the court’s jurisdiction itself seems extraordinary, given the conventional wisdom that the principle of territorial sovereignty was predominant at the time. Part II places the court and its practice of extraterritorial jurisdiction within a longer global genealogy. Despite the contemporary rhetoric of globalization and its claims about the relatively stronger tendency for the extraterritorial application of national laws today, extraterritorial jurisdiction was in fact the norm for much of the extra-European world through the nineteenth century. Ultimately, the unique, and seemingly arbitrary, jurisprudence the court produced was intimately connected with the extraterritorial nature of its jurisdiction. Part III suggests that the conflicts of law faced by the U.S. Court for China proved exceedingly difficult to resolve precisely because of the legal fiction of extraterritoriality upon which the court’s jurisdiction rested. As part of its mandate in applying the laws of the United States, the court was required to treat China as if it were the United States. Yet the principle of territoriality that performed a key role in resolving conflicts within the federal system in the United States simply could not do the same in China for the profoundly simple reason that, in the end, legal fictions aside, China was not America. Unsurprisingly, the end result was an imperial court that was left to fashion its own law, which in turn was distinct from that of every other territorial jurisdiction. Indeed, it constituted a kind of American common law of China, and the legal world of Americans in China constituted a kind of U.S. colony, albeit one that did not formally infringe on China’s territorial sovereignty.
Tushnet on the Rights Revolution
Tushnet traces the concept of legal "rights" through the 20th century--from their origins in classical liberalism, fashioned in legislatures and emphasizing choice and contract, to notions of personal autonomy and equality protected by the judicial system.I read a draft and can recommend the work highly.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The SEC, 1973-1981
The Virtual Museum of the Securities and Exchange Commission Historical Society announces the opening of its latest gallery, In the Midst of Revolution: The SEC, 1973-1981. According to the announcement,this newest and largest permanent gallery in the museum brings together more than 840 materials from the museum collection on the post-Watergate SEC; the ending of fixed commission rates; the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; SEC efforts in corporate governance and accountability, and accounting self-regulation; the appointment of Roberta Karmel as the first woman SEC Commissioner [right]; the Federal Securities Code Project; and the impact of the election of Ronald Reagan.The gallery is curated by Kurt Hohenstein, Assistant Professor of History and Co-Director of the Law and Society Program at Winona State University.
Upcoming Conference: Motherhood: Reclaiming Our Past, Transforming Our Future
Motherhood: Reclaiming Our Past, Transforming Our Future

March 12 & 13, 2010
University of Denver Sturm College of Law, Denver, Colorado
Plenary Panel- Professor Naomi Cahn (John Theodore Fey Research Professor of Law, GWU Law School), Prof. Judy Walsh (UCD School of Social Justice, Dublin), Prof. Nancy Ehrenreich (Sturm College of Law, DU)
Monday, November 30, 2009
Kang on The Religious Origins of the Constitutional Right of Revolution
This Article explores the religious origins of the right to alter or abolish government. I show in Part I that the right was widely accepted among the American colonies as expressed through their constitutions and, later, the federal constitution. In Part II, I usher the reader back in time and across the continent to seventeenth century England. There, I introduce two men who would have abhorred everything about American constitutional democracy - King James I and the philosopher Sir Robert Filmer. Both men, prominent in their respective domains of authority, devoted themselves to the governing axiom that kings were bequeathed a right by God to absolute rule. Part III sketches the seventeenth century arguments of two other Englishmen, also prominent--the philosophers John Locke and Algernon Sidney - who challenged James and Filmer. Locke and Sidney argued that God had never sanctioned the divine right of kings and instead had justified the people’s right to overthrow tyrants.
The arguments of Locke and Sidney will, as I show in subsequent sections, influence the American clergy who supported war against Britain and the right of revolution in general. Indeed, the development of this connection will occupy me for the remainder of the Article, but, in Part IV, I take a brief respite to summarize the historical circumstances that severely hampered governmental control over religion in colonial America and thus provided partially autonomous spaces for people to reflect on religion, including in ways that would inform their right to alter or abolish government. I illustrate in Part V how several prominent American clergymen, following Locke and Sidney, rejected as impossible the divine and supposedly infallible status of rulers. God, the clergy insisted, was the only one who could claim such infallibility; the clergy warned that rulers would do well to devote themselves to the people’s well being, not the former’s aggrandizement. In Part VI, I argue that, again echoing Locke and Sidney, a prominent group of American clergymen insisted that, contrary to the anti-democratic jeers of monarchists, God had given people the capacity for reason which enabled them to make meaningful decisions about their political future. I conclude in Part VII by illustrating how the federal and state constitutions following the American Revolution sought to protect conditions for the faithful to contemplate the religious meaning of the right to alter or abolish government.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Sunday book review round-up
AMERICAN ORIGINAL: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia by Joan Biskupic is reviewed in the Washington Post.Dominic Sandbrook, "History Books of the Year," Telegraph, 26 November, takes a crack at naming the best of a year's books in history. See also: "100 Notable Books of 2009: Non-fiction," NYT, 6 December; and Benjamin Schwarz, "Books of the Year," Atlantic, December.
Irish Legal History: Two New Essays
Thanks to Robert Richards for bringing to our attention the publication last September by the University College Dublin Press of People, Politics and Power: Essays on Irish History 1660-1850 in Honour of James I. McGuire, edited by James Kelly, John McCafferty, Charles Ivar McGrath, because we would otherwise have missed its two chapters on legal history: Hazel Maynard's "The Irish Legal Profession and the Catholic Revival, 1660-1689," and John Bergin's "Irish Private Divorce Bills and Acts of the Eighteenth Century."
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Vintage Hovenkamp: The Classical Corporation in American Legal Thought
Classical political economy was dedicated to the principle that the state could best encourage economic development by leaving entrepreneurs alone, free of regulation and subsidy. The development of classical economic policy in the United States dramatically changed the concept of the business corporation. Within the preclassical, mercantilist model, the corporation was a unique entity created by the state for a special purpose and enjoyed a privileged relationship with the sovereign. The very act of incorporation presumed state involvement. State subsidy and the incorporators' public obligation were natural corollaries. Business firms that relied on the market alone to determine their prospects were simply not incorporated. As classical theory replaced the mercantilist model, the business corporation gradually evolved into a device for assembling large amounts of capital in a manner that could be controlled efficiently by a small number of managers. The classical model of the corporation did not emerge mature in a single decision. It evolved gradually in the nineteenth century, reaching its apogee in the 1880s and 1890s.The developing model of the classical corporation included two fundamental premises: (1) the corporate form is not a special privilege but merely one of many ways of organizing a business firm; and (2) the peculiar advantage of the corporation which the law should encourage is its ability to raise and concentrate capital more efficiently than other forms of business organization. These important developments formed the core of the classical corporate model: (1) the attack on the Marshall era contract clause; (2) the demise of the charter theory of business regulation; (3) the rise of the General Corporation Act and the decline of the special subsidy; (4) the application of the fourteenth amendment's protections to corporations; (5) the expansion of limited shareholder liability; (6) the narrowing scope of quo warranto and ultra vires; (7) the facilitation of multistate corporate business activities; and (8) the separation of ownership and control.
Schauer on Positivism Before Hart
Many contemporary practitioners of analytic jurisprudence take their understanding of legal positivism largely from Hart, and the debates about legal positivism exist largely in a post-Hartian world. But if we examine carefully the writings and motivations of Bentham and even Austin, we will discover that there are good historical grounds for treating both a normative version of positivism and a version more focused on legal decision-making as entitled to at least co-equal claims on the positivist tradition. And even if we think of the inquiry in philosophical and not historical terms, there are reasons to doubt the view that a theory of the nature of law is the exclusive understanding of the core commitment of legal positivism. Positivism as a descriptive theory of the nature of law is important, but so too is positivism as a normative theory about the preferable attitude of society or theorists, and so too is positivism as a normative or descriptive theory of adjudication and other forms of legal decision-making. Those who understand positivism and the positivist tradition as being more normative or more adjudication-focused than the contemporary understanding allows are not committing either historical or philosophical mistakes, and little would be lost were we to recognize the multiple important contemporary manifestations of the legal positivist tradition.
Olson on Extremism and Political Thought
This paper examines the use of the American jeremiad in the abolitionist and anti-abortion movements in the U.S. The American jeremiad is the lament, ubiquitous in political thought and culture in the U.S., that Americans are a chosen people who have failed to fulfill their calling, yet can still redeem themselves by returning to their moral and intellectual roots. Fanatics such as the abolitionist John Brown and anti-abortion activists Randall Terry, Paul Hill, and Scott Roeder embrace the structure and exceptionalism of the American jeremiad but, in contrast to political moderates, they insist on achieving the utopian ideals of the American jeremiad (unconditional emancipation, the outlawing of abortion) immediately rather than in the distant future. This leads them to reject political moderation and to embrace an extremist approach to politics.Olson, an Associate Professor of Politics and International Affairs is the author of The Abolition of White Democracy (University of Minnesota Press, 2004). He is at work on American Zealot, a book on the role of fanaticism in the American political tradition.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Comments temporarily turned off
Call for Papers: The Historical Society 2010 Conference
We especially encourage panel proposals, though individual paper proposals are welcome as well. And our interpretation of "panel" is broad: 2 or more presenters constitute a panel--chairs and commentators are optional. As at past conferences, we hope for bold yet informal presentations that will provoke lots of questions and discussion from the audience, not presenters reading papers word-for-word from a podium followed by a commentator doing the same. Please submit proposals (brief abstract and brief CV) by January 31, 2010 to Eric Arnesen, 2010 Program Chair, at jslucas@bu.edu.
Holloway on Disenfranchisement for Larceny in the Redeemer South
Between 1874 and 1882 all southern states (except Texas) amended their constitutions and revised their laws to disfranchise for petty theft. These revisions were part of a larger effort to disfranchise African American voters and to restore the Democratic party to political dominance in the region. This expansion of disfranchisement took the form of statutory revision, constitutional amendment, and judicial action. Some southern states changed their laws to upgrade misdemeanor property crimes to felonies. Felonies were already disfranchising offenses in most of these states. Several states amended or revised their constitutions to expand disfranchisement to include larceny and/or petit larceny. Two southern states that had never disfranchised for any crimes amended their constitutions to establish this penalty for the first time in the 1870s. Finally, southern courts interpreted existing laws to include misdemeanors as disfranchising crimes. While Democrats celebrated the success of these laws in disfranchising African Americans, Republicans criticized their racial and partisan impact. Although Democrats used a variety of techniques to ensure their electoral dominance, these new laws were one tool used by Democrats to deny the vote to Republicans in some of the most tightly-contested elections of this period. This article concludes with a discussion of the symbolic role that chicken theft played in discussions of petty theft. Experiences from the 1870s and 1880s demonstrate that partisan advantage can be obtained from laws disfranchising for crime, particularly when election officials with a partisan agenda exploit racially-skewed conviction and incarceration rates.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Happy Thanksgiving!
Hat tip.We have many things to be thankful for this year at the Legal History Blog. High on the list is you, dear reader. Thanks for visiting. That's what keeps the blog going.
The Legal History Blog will be back soon.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
On the Pilgrims
As Americans prepare to stuff their faces with turkey, pie, turkey pie, and all manner of bread-related foods, and clock in millions of hours of TV football viewing, it’s worth considering the Pilgrims, originators of America's holiday....How do Pilgrims fit into American history and religious history in general?
How low the founders of our national myth have fallen. Nineteenth-century Protestants celebrated the Pilgrims as hearty, pure-of-heart forbearers. Yet even in the 19th century Pilgrims had their share of detractors....
In 1881, Mark Twain delivered an uproarious address, in the form of a plea, to the New England Society of Philadelphia. Why all this “laudation and hosannaing” about the Pilgrims? he asked his audience. “The Pilgrims were a simple and ignorant race. They never had seen any good rocks before, or at least any that were not watched, and so they were excusable for hopping ashore in frantic delight and clapping an iron fence around this one.” “Plymouth Rock and the Pilgrims” was a classic piece of Sam Clemens’ contrarianism. As the whole country went mad with Pilgrim fever, Twain shouted, “Humbug!”
Call for LHB Facebook Coordinator
og to have a Facebook presence. As with our Twitter feed, this would bring LHB content to a new space on the web. Having limited time for such things, your Legal History Bloggers would like some help from a Facebook-friendly reader.









