Monday, July 6, 2020
Amid my dissertation malaise I really turned a corner when I finally admitted writing felt impossible - I truly did not believe I could finish the dissertation - and that I hated doing it. This was a hard thing to say out loud. Quitting was not an option, I was the only income and source of insurance for my family, and I’d gone to grad school in part to escape years of employment insecurity, so the thought of trying to figure out how to do anything else was terrifying as well. (As I type this I am aware that I was naive about the state of the academic job market when I went to grad school in 2005 or so. I am also aware that the market is even worse now than it was when I finally graduated in 2014. Graduate students and non-tenure-track faculty have been massively failed in multiple ways by a lot of powerful people and institutions.)
Having admitted that writing the dissertation felt impossible but that I still had to write it somehow, my job became figuring out how to spend my time doing something I hated and that I didn’t believe I could succeed at. In effect I had to find a way to make my putting in the time to do the work not contingent upon how I felt about doing the work. I still didn’t believe I could finish the dissertation, but I knew that the only shot I had at finishing was to spend a lot of time writing.
Constant headlines about deportations, detention camps, and border walls drive urgent debates about immigration and what it means to be an American in the twenty-first century. The Deportation Machine traces the long and troubling history of the US government’s systematic efforts to terrorize and expel immigrants over the past 140 years. This provocative, eye-opening book provides needed historical perspective on one of the most pressing social and political issues of our time.
In a sweeping and engaging narrative, Adam Goodman examines how federal, state, and local officials have targeted various groups for expulsion, from Chinese and Europeans at the turn of the twentieth century to Central Americans and Muslims today. He reveals how authorities have singled out Mexicans, nine out of ten of all deportees, and removed most of them not by orders of immigration judges but through coercive administrative procedures and calculated fear campaigns. Goodman uncovers the machine’s three primary mechanisms—formal deportations, “voluntary” departures, and self-deportations—and examines how public officials have used them to purge immigrants from the country and exert control over those who remain. Exposing the pervasive roots of anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States, The Deportation Machine introduces the politicians, bureaucrats, businesspeople, and ordinary citizens who have pushed for and profited from expulsion.
This revelatory book chronicles the devastating human costs of deportation and the innovative strategies people have adopted to fight against the machine and redefine belonging in ways that transcend citizenship.
"Most books about deportation focus on formal proceedings conducted by the government. Adam Goodman widens the scope to consider 'voluntary' departures and self-deportations, which are far greater in number and no less part of the state's deportation machinery. A must-read for all those who care about the reach of state authority and its consequences for immigrants and citizens alike."—Mae Ngai
"Drawing on interviews and oral histories, meticulous research in more than twenty archives, and old-fashioned detective work, Adam Goodman offers a beautifully written and comprehensive history of US deportation policies. This book is a must-read, not just for students, scholars, and policymakers, but for all engaged citizens who want a fuller recounting of our national past."—María Cristina García
Sunday, July 5, 2020
Reforming Criminal Justice in the Ottoman Empire: Police, Courts and Prisons in Rusçuk, 1839-1864
Combatting Bias in the Criminal Courts of France, 1870s-1913
Political Judging and Judicial Restraint: The Case of Learned and Augustus Hand
Law at a Critical Juncture: The US Army’s Command Responsibility Trials at Manila, 1945-1947
White Subversion of Public School Desegregation in South Carolina, 1963-1970
Elizabeth Papp Kamali, Felony and the Guilty Mind in Medieval England
Sarah B White
Anat Rosenberg, Liberalizing Contracts: Nineteenth Century Promises Through Literature, Law and History
Saturday, July 4, 2020
- From the Washington Post's "Made by History" section: Adam Laats (Binghamton University (SUNY)), "Religious animus did not drive the laws the Supreme Court just overturned"; Carissa Harris (Temple University), "Women have been fighting for abortion rights for 500 years"; Lisa Levenstein (University of North Carolina, Greensboro), "With schools and daycare closed, the coronavirus is worsening women’s inequality"; and more.
- Not only has Elizabeth Papp Kamali, “a scholar specializing in medieval legal history,” been tenured and promoted to professor of law at Harvard Law School, she’s been deputy deaned! (Harvard Law Today).
- From Keisha Blain (University of Pittsburgh), writing for Inside Higher Ed: tips for early career scholars on publishing journal articles.
- "Erasing History or Making History? Race, Racism, and the American Memorial Landscape," an American Historical Association Webinar, with David W. Blight and Annette Gordon-Reed, moderated by AHA Executive Director Jim Grossman. (Facebook)
- ICYMI: Aderson Bellegarde François (Georgetown Law), on Robert Smalls and Woodrow Wilson (New Republic). The renaming of US Coast Guard Cutter Taney (Fox Baltimore). A nicely illustrated history of the ballot (Quartz). Jack Rakove (Stanford University) on what TJ meant by "all men are created equal" (Stanford News)
Friday, July 3, 2020
Public interest impact litigation as currently practiced raises significant legal ethics concerns. This Article excavates the historical foundations of two of these difficulties and, on the basis of original archival research, uncovers a way around them.--Dan Ernst
The Article focuses on two modern ethical dilemmas posed by impact litigation: conflicts of interest and the use of litigation as an improper end run around legislative policy-making. It argues that, as a historical and doctrinal matter, these ethical problems trace back to Justice Brennan’s decision to set cause-lawyering on a putatively neutral First Amendment basis in NAACP v. Button. That rationale, however, was not the case’s original ratio decidendi. In fact, the egalitarian neutralism Brennan embraced had initially provided a reason for finding impact litigation improper. Only unusual circumstances transformed it into a foundation for cause-lawyering. Meanwhile, a suppressed, unpublished draft opinion would have grounded impact litigation in Equal Protection and Carolene Products-type considerations. This race- and power-conscious alternative, championed by Justice Black, provided a competing ethical foundation for public interest impact litigation that would have better addressed our contemporary legal ethics concerns.
Hugo Black, J. (LC)
This Article elucidates Justice Black’s argument for the first time. It reconstructs the complicated dynamics that led to the abandonment of his dissent and its transformation into Justice Brennan’s majority opinion. In telling this story, the Article denaturalizes the ethical regime that governs impact litigation today by showing how nearly it was radically different. The Article’s contributions are descriptive and normative. On the descriptive level, it offers a revised account of NAACP v. Button on the basis of new archival finds. Normatively, it seeks to champion Black’s race and power consciousness against Brennan’s neutralism, showing what Black’s approach might have to offer legal ethics today.
Thursday, July 2, 2020
Bloom, Lackland H Jr
Born in Dissent: Free Speech and Gay Rights
Speech and Exercise by Private Individuals and Organizations
The Clear and Present Dangers of the Clear and Present Danger Test: Schenck and Abrams Revisited
Krotoszynski, Ronald J Jr
Dissent in a Crowded Theater
"And the Truth Shall Make You Free": Schenck, Abrams, and a Hundred Years of History
Smolla, Rodney A
Deliberate Democracy, Truth, and Holmesian Social Darwinism
Falsity and the First Amendment
White, G Edward
Originalist Reflections on Constitutional Freedom of Speech
In 2019, Megan Ming Francis published a path-breaking article challenging the conventional wisdom in the field on a core piece of civil rights history: the role of a philanthropic foundation called the American Fund for Public Service, also known as the Garland Fund, in working alongside the NAACP to produce the organization’s famous litigation campaign leading to Brown v. Board of Education. In Francis’s provocative account, the predominantly white Garland Fund captured the agenda of the civil rights organization through its financial influence, shifting the organization’s central focus from racial violence toward education equality. In this exchange, Francis and legal historian John Fabian Witt debate exactly who captured whom in the relationship between the NAACP and the Garland Fund. Their exchange engages method and substance in the history of civil rights. Among other things, Witt contends that the NAACP’s leadership also subtly coopted the Garland Fund’s resources and turned them toward the civil rights organization’s preexisting agenda rather than vice versa.
Charles Garland, 1922 (wiki)
The exchange proceeds with an opening statement by Francis, and reply by Witt, and a surreply by Francis, and a closing note from Witt.
Wednesday, July 1, 2020
My book is called Injury Impoverished: Workplace Accidents, Capitalism, and Law in the Progressive Era. It's my first book and is based on my dissertation. I think of the book as a study in the intellectual life of governance - how power relationships are conceptualized, mostly by powerful people, and what concepts are implied within power relationships, whether or not anyone actually thought them explicitly. In my view, inquiry is enriched by emphasis on both of these facets, the actual thoughts of people and the implicit logics enacted within institutional practices. I’m aware that this all sounds pretty abstract. In addition to talking about abstract matters, I also tried to foreground the real human beings who died, suffered, and lived despite all the harms to which working-class people are subjected. In my view, that dying and suffering was (and still is) largely organized by the kinds of abstractions I talk about in the book.
As a result of continuing uncertainty caused by the coronavirus pandemic, in particular in relation to international travel, the organisers of the British Legal History Conference 2021 have decided to postpone the conference to 6-9 July 2022. This decision has been taken in consultation with the BLHC Continuation Committee.
The theme for BLHC 2022 is unchanged: Law and Constitutional Change and, as originally planned, the conference will be organised in association with the Irish Legal History Society.
A fresh call for papers will be made on 15 March 2021. Registration will open in February 2022. The conference website will shortly be updated.
To preserve the usual biennial pattern of BLHCs, arrangements will be made by the BLHC Continuation Committee for the conference following the Queen’s, Belfast event to be held in 2024.
The Republic of Biafra lasted for less than three years, but the war over its secession would contort Nigeria for decades to come. Samuel Fury Childs Daly examines the history of the Nigerian Civil War and its aftermath from an uncommon vantage point – the courtroom. Wartime Biafra was glutted with firearms, wracked by famine, and administered by a government that buckled under the weight of the conflict. In these dangerous conditions, many people survived by engaging in fraud, extortion, and armed violence. When the fighting ended in 1970, these survival tactics endured, even though Biafra itself disappeared from the map. Based on research using an original archive of legal records and oral histories, Daly catalogues how people navigated conditions of extreme hardship on the war front, and shows how the conditions of the Nigerian Civil War paved the way for the country's long experience of crime that was to follow.Table of Contents after the jump:
Tuesday, June 30, 2020
Empires of Vice: A First Book with Multiple Audiences
Empires of Vice: For Those Interested in Opium and Archives
Empires of Vice: On Doing a Written Book Interview via Email
Empires of Vice: For Those Interested in the State
Empires of Vice: On Doing a Spoken Book Interview through Zoom, Podcasts
Empires of Vice: For Those Interested in Southeast Asia and Empire
Thank you, Professor Kim!
|Popular depiction of the Second Opium War|
Le Charivari 1859, by Honoré-Victorin Daumier
Currently, 9 out of 10 ASEAN member states impose the death penalty for non-violent drug crimes, accounting for nearly a third of the world's countries that retain capital punishment. Major 21st century “drug wars”—including in Thailand (2003), the Philippines (2016-), Indonesia (2017-)—have killed hundreds of thousands of people and violate the human rights of more. And Southeast Asia hosts the “Golden Triangle” region, the world’s second largest illicit poppy cultivation area. Southeast Asia’s vexed landscape as such is no accident. The region’s illicit drug economies and punitive states represent the stubborn legacies of opium-entangled European imperialism since the 19th century.
What are practical lessons to be drawn from Southeast Asia's past? For one, it helps explain why zero-tolerance approaches to drug control will not work. Most countries with drug problems today have complex histories of state building tied to drug revenue and imperialism. Such legacies cannot be totally eradicated. Second, for policy makers interested in solving transnational problems, Empires of Vice sheds light on why great moral transformations in state behavior happen slowly and incrementally: not only because knowledge and norms about what defines “good” in the world change slowly, but also because pragmatic approaches for acting according to new moral standards are difficult to design. I elaborate on these and additional policy implications in this short essay for The Ambassador’s Brief.
Monday, June 29, 2020
What—and who—is a demagogue? How did America’s Founders envision the presidency? What should a constitutional democracy look like—and how can it be fixed when it appears to be broken?Jack Goldsmith interviews Posner about the book on the Lawfare podcast. Also, this.
Something is definitely wrong with Donald Trump’s presidency, but what exactly? The extraordinary negative reaction to Trump’s election—by conservative intellectuals, liberals, Democrats, and global leaders alike—goes beyond ordinary partisan and policy disagreements. It reflects genuine fear about the vitality of our constitutional system. The Founders, reaching back to classical precedents, feared that their experiment in mass self-government could produce a demagogue: a charismatic ruler who would gain and hold on to power by manipulating the public rather than by advancing the public good.
President Trump, who has played to the mob and attacked institutions from the judiciary to the press, appears to embody these ideas. How can we move past his rhetoric and maintain faith in our great nation?
In The Demagogue’s Playbook, acclaimed legal scholar Eric A. Posner offers a blueprint for how America can prevent the rise of another demagogue and protect the features of a democracy that help it thrive—and restore national greatness, for one and all.
Sunday, June 28, 2020
The University of Vienna (20 faculties and centres, 178 fields of study, approx. 9.800 members of staff, about 90.000 students) seeks to fill the position from 01.10.2020 of a University Assistant (post doc) at the Department of Legal and Constitutional History to 30.09.2026. (Reference number: 10943.)
The Institute for Legal and Constitutional History conducts research and teaches on all parts of European legal history, with a focus on Austria. A post-doc position, limited to 6 years is announced herewith. It is desirable that the applicant writes a habilitation thesis on legal history within this time. Therefore, relevant previous experience and publications should already be available and be presented when applying. The habilitation project should be presented in a short synopsis.
Duration of employment: 6 year/s. Extent of Employment: 40 hours/week. Job grading in accordance with collective bargaining agreement: §48 VwGr. B1 lit. b (postdoc) with relevant work experience determining the assignment to a particular salary grade.
Job Description: Active participation in research, teaching and administration. This involves - Developing and strengthening the independent research profile - Involvement in research projects / research studies - International publications and presentations - Responsibility for project applications and the acquisition of third-party funding - Preparing / writing a (publication-ready) habilitation thesis - Independent teaching of courses as defined by the collective agreement - Supervision of students - Participation in evaluation measures and quality assurance - Involvement in the department administration as well as in teaching and research administration. [More]
Saturday, June 27, 2020
|Thomas Ruffin, 1859 (LC)|
- From 2018, Eric L. Muller, UNC School of Law, and Sally Greene, on the portrait of Thomas Ruffin at the North Carolina Supreme Court, from the Raleigh News & Observer (text and video).
- ICYMI: Frank Snowden and Nancy Bristow on how pandemic shape history (PBS NewsHour). Stephanie McCurry on the antidemocratic Confederacy (The Atlantic). George Nash reviews Bernard Bailyn's Illuminating History (Law and Liberty). The Southern Poverty Law Center on the Tulsa Massacre of 1921.
- Update: Laurence Tribe reflects on his life and career. (Harvard Gazette)
Friday, June 26, 2020
We have the following announcement:
Call for Applications for Early Career Cromwell Research Fellowships-- Karen Tani
The William Nelson Cromwell Foundation will make available a number of $5,000 fellowship awards to support research and writing in American legal history by early-career scholars. Early career generally includes those researching or writing a PhD dissertation (or equivalent project) and recent recipients of a graduate degree working on their first major monograph or research project. The Committee for Research Fellowships and Awards of the American Society for Legal History reviews the applications and makes recommendations to the Foundation. Applications are due by July , 2020.
Complete guidelines and instructions regarding how to apply for such fellowships are located on the website of the American Society of Legal History [here].
Thursday, June 25, 2020
Between the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, the question of what to do about “trusts” dominated American political life. Before 1889, the dominant form of amalgamating competing businesses was the trust, because corporations could not hold shares in other corporations, and instead the shareholders would exchange their shares for trust certificates. But in 1889 New Jersey (the “traitor state”, according to muckraking journalist Lincoln Steffens) changed its corporate law to allow for holding company structures, setting of a great wave of amalgamations in areas like oil, tobacco, sugar and steel.
Lincoln Steffens (NYPL)
This paper will focus on one attempt to address the “trust problem” by means other than the Sherman Act (which faced some resistance in the courts, as the government lost the E.C. Knight case in the Supreme Court in 1895 and barely won the Northern Securities case in 1905). This was the corporate tax act of 1909, which as will be seen below, was primarily intended as an antitrust measure. However, after the enactment of the Clayton Act and the creation of the FTC in 1914, the corporate tax was less needed as an antitrust measure, and between 1919 and 1928 its antitrust features were largely eliminated.
William Howard Taft was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1921 through 1930. This paper, excerpted from the forthcoming Volume X of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States, chronicles and evaluates the incomparable contributions of Taft during the period. The paper is forthcoming in the Michigan State Law Review.–Dan Ernst
Taft played three roles on the Court during the 1920s. He was a Justice, a Chief Justice, and a prodigious judicial reformer. The paper evaluates his performance in Taft’s contributions to each of these roles, which Taft occupied with exceptional vigor and competence. The paper gives special attention to Taft’s creation of a new Supreme Court building; to Taft’s influence on the selection of lower court federal judges; to Taft’s establishment of the Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, which fundamentally altered the structure of the federal judiciary; and to Taft’s inspired advocacy for the Act of February 13, 1925, which reconfigured the Supreme Court from a simple tribunal of last resort into a manager of the system of federal law.
William Howard Taft, CJ (LC)
As a former President, Taft imagined the Chief Justice as the supervisor of the Judicial Branch, in much the same way as the President was the supervisor of the Executive Branch. In so doing, Taft profoundly altered the office of the Chief Justice. The paper discusses the tensions implicit in Taft’s efforts to import into the American constitutional order an office approximating an English Lord Chancellor, responsible for the administration of justice.
Wednesday, June 24, 2020
“One Empire, Many Colonies, Similar or Different Histories?”
39th Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Law and History Society, Auckland, 9th-12th December 2020
Abstracts are invited from scholars bringing historical perspective on law who wish to gather at The University of Auckland and AUT University - there to listen to and discuss papers and panels on aspects of law in history. Well, that was the original plan, but since the impact of COVID-19, travel restrictions and university funding deficits, we now also seek expressions of interest from those who may wish to present a paper to a dual format conference or virtual-only conference if either possibility turns out to be feasible.
The 2020 theme invites a comparative lens on British imperial and colonial histories. Other papers with an historical perspective on law might include work that positions law in a specific temporal frame; deals with histories of law, lawmaking, and legal ideas; or has a focus on legal institutions and their personnel. Proposals from postgraduate and early career researchers are welcome.
Individual paper proposals for a 20 minute presentation must include an abstract (no more than 300 words) and a biographical statement (no more than 100 words). Panel proposals by 3 or 4 speakers should include the above, plus a panel title and brief rationale for the panel as a whole (no more than 300 words). All abstracts must be submitted to Karen Fairweather: email@example.com by 31 July 2020.
The Organising Committee intends to notify all those whose abstracts have been accepted for the programme by the end of August 2020. All presenters must be current financial members of the Australian and New Zealand Law and History Society, or must pay a subscription for the 2020 year.
Graduate students are invited to apply for Kercher Scholarships to assist them in attending the conference. Please apply to Katherine Sanders: firstname.lastname@example.org by 31 August. Graduate attendees may also wish to enter for the Forbes Society Prize.
The Society's peer-reviewed journal law&history will consider submissions from those who present papers at the conference. A conference website with information on registration costs, accommodation options, etc will be established in due course. Our keynote speakers will include Dame Sian Elias (Retired NZ Chief Justice), Joshua Getzler (Oxford) and Miranda Johnson (Sydney, but soon to be at Otago).
Further information about the conference may be gleaned from David Williams: email@example.com or from [here].
The American Society for Legal History has created a Google Group Discussion, originally (as its title, Legal History Records Discussion Group, suggests) to promote exchange about digitized legal history sources but subsequently widened to include discussion of online teaching. The recently updated Legal History on the Web, hosted by Duke University, includes a portal to Primary Source Databases/Web Archives, but I do not know of a legal-history-specific wiki, where we might make available to each other, say, short lectures to use as asynchronous components in our courses. (John Fabian Witt’s short lectures on the legal history of contagious disease in the United States would be an example.) We cannot maintain such a wiki on Legal History Blog, but we do encourage interested legal historians to join the ASLH discussion group–especially if they are already members or promptly join ASLH–and I’ll monitor comments to this post to gauge interest.
Update: @RachelGurvich is way ahead of me. H/t: LPK
Tuesday, June 23, 2020
A key feature of British rule in India was the formation of a class of elite metropolitan lawyers who had an outsized role within the legal profession and a prominent position in Indian politics. This paper analyzes the response of these legal elites to the shifting social and political terrain of post-colonial India, arguing that the advent of the Indian nation-state shaped the discursive strategies of elite lawyers in two crucial ways. First, in response to the slipping grasp of lawyers on Indian political life and increasing competition from developmentalist economics, the elite bar turned their attention towards the consolidation of a national professional identity, imagining an ‘Indian advocate’ as such, whose loyalty would ultimately lie with the nation-state. Second, the creation of the Supreme Court of India, the enactment of the Constitution of India, and the continuous swelling of the post-colonial regulatory welfare state partially reoriented the legal elite towards public law, particularly towards the burgeoning field of administrative law.
Monday, June 22, 2020
In recognition of the centennial of the Nineteenth Amendment, this essay provides an introduction to a largely overlooked yet essential component of the women’s movement: the pursuit of women’s legal right to hold public office. From the mid-nineteenth century through ratification of the federal suffrage amendment in 1920, women demanded access to appointed and elected positions, ranging from notary public to mayor. Because the legal right to hold office had literal and symbolic connections to the right to vote, suffragists and antisuffragists were deeply invested in the outcome. Courts and legislatures varied in their responses, with those in the Midwest and West generally more willing than those in the Northeast and South to construe or create law permitting women to hold office. This account centers on the experiences of Nellie G. Robinson, a pioneering woman lawyer whose efforts to secure public office in Ohio received nationwide attention in the years surrounding the turn of the twentieth century. To contextualize Robinson’s successes and failures, the essay expands to consider the parallel efforts of other women lawyers from the period, as well as the broader history of women’s officeholding in Ohio—a state with laws and politics reflecting the major trends and tensions in the national women’s officeholding movement.--Dan Ernst
This essay was written for a symposium issue of the Akron Law Review, organized with the Center for Constitutional Law. The topic for the conference and symposium was "The 19th Amendment at 100: From the Vote to Gender Equality."
Until the early 1980s, my high school had a smoking lounge. It was a medium-sized room off the lobby with some beat-up furniture where students could hang out, smoking their Marlboros and their clove cigarettes. There was even a king and queen of the smoking lounge, pictured in the yearbook alongside the prom’s royal court.
Today such an accommodation of smoking is unimaginable. Indeed, in most states, it would be illegal. In the past forty years, the United States transformed from a society where the cigarette represented a combination of sophistication and rebellion to one in which smokers are benighted addicts, suffering for their own moral failures. Sarah Milov’s breathtaking The Cigarette: A Political History explains how this happened. In telling this story, her narrative weaves together legal, political, and economic history in a manner that calls for a revaluation of the dimensions of twentieth-century liberalism and the nature of its decline. The book is a compelling exercise in historical synecdoche: its subject is the political history of the cigarette, but its story is that of the twentieth-century American state.
Frankly, one could teach a course on twentieth-century legal history using this book as a textbook. It speaks to a broad range of subjects central to the interests of legal historians: the role of law in constituting capitalism; the interaction of law, gender, and race in the construction of social movements; the simultaneously emancipatory and constraining potential of framing policy preferences as rights; the profound role of the administrative state in structuring politics and policy; the rise of public interest litigation; the importance of understanding the legal history of agriculture, a field sorely neglected by legal historians.
Saturday, June 20, 2020
- ASLH Secretary Anne Twitty on her recent discovery concerning Old Miss’s Monument to White Supremacy, in The Atlantic.
- The New York Times observed Juneteenth with this piece by Martha Jones (Johns Hopkins): "Ida, Maya, Rosa, Harriet: The Power in Our Names."
- Members of the Organization of American Historians can view online presentations of the papers and panels scheduled for its canceled annual meeting, including Brent Cebul, University of Pennsylvania, on the business appropriation of the language of community development (in the panel Leveraging Poverty: New Cities, New Partnerships, and the Progressive Abandonment of Urban Poverty in the 1980s and 1990s) and Unjust and Unequal: Death Investigations into Homicides in St. Louis, Missouri, 1875 to 1885, by Sarah Lirley McCune, Columbia College.
- The National History Center hosts a virtual congressional briefing on the history of vaccination usage and policy on Monday, June 22 at 11 a.m. More.
- Searching for the real Nat Turner, but finding his ghost: a review of Christopher Tomlins’s In the Matter of Nat Turner: A Speculative History, in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Eleanor of Brittany (wiki)
- Gwen Seabourne, University of Bristol Law School, has posted Eleanor of Brittany and her Treatment by King John and Henry III, which she describes simply as a “study of the treatment of Eleanor of Brittany by successive kings of England.” It will appear in Nottingham Medieval Studies.
- Is it just me, or does anyone else think more reporters should be referencing Al Brophy's Reconstructing the Dreamland? DRE
- ICYMI: Annette Gordon-Reed on Growing Up with Juneteenth (New Yorker) and on the removal of Confederate statues (Harvard Gazette). What Thurgood Marshall taught Cass Sunstein about police accountability (Star Tribune). Is 15 June 1215 the true date of Magna Carta? (BBC History).
Friday, June 19, 2020
|National Archives, 1939 (LC)|
[Also: NARA find the "Juneteenth" order. WaPo.]