Saturday, March 24, 2018

Weekend Roundup

  • A Movie Night We're Sorry We Missed: A screening of Adams Rib and discussion by Annette Gordon-Reed and Justice Robert R. Reed in the Justice in Film series at the New-York Historical Society last night!
 Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.

Friday, March 23, 2018

Chacón Reviews Hernández's "City of Inmates"

Jennifer M. Chacón, University of California, Irvine School of Law, has posted Unsettling History, a review of Kelly Lytle Hernández’s City of Inmates, which will appear in the Harvard Law Review 131 (2018): 1078-1123:
This review examines Kelly Lytle Hernández’s book City of Inmates: Conquest, Rebellion and the Rise of Human Caging in Los Angeles, 1771-1965. The book argues for a recognition of the unacknowledged extent to which so much of our criminal enforcement system — and particularly the growth of the carceral state — embodies a broader settler-colonial project. The enslavement and the continued subjugation of African Americans is an essential component of this story. Hernández’s work situates the legacy of slavery in the broader settler-colonial frame, while simultaneously bringing into focus the ways that the elimination of indigenous peoples and related imperialist foreign policy objectives have also been important ingredients in the evolution of the contemporary criminal enforcement system. She not only provides details of events and developments that are overlooked in some other accounts, but also complicates our understanding of some well-known developments, including the growth of the federal prison system, the development and enforcement of vagrancy laws, and the interplay between immigration enforcement and criminal enforcement.

Hernández’s history of Los Angeles tells a story of the rise of mass incarceration that looks different from the story captured in other widely read, high-level accounts. Her specific and distinctive geographic focus allows her to think about how various bodies of laws and a multiplicity of state actors were interacting in synergistic ways to generate a system of social control that generally served the ends of white settlers of the Los Angeles basin at the expense of its indigenous inhabitants as well as of poor, itinerant workers, Chinese immigrants, Mexicans and Mexican Americans, and black Angelinos. In telling this story, however, Hernández departs from several conventions of legal academic analysis. First, she ignores formalistic divisions among carceral categories. Second, she blurs more boundaries by interweaving her discussion of sites of incarceration with discussions of broader mechanisms of social control, particularly street policing. Finally, as set forth in section C, she upends the traditional focus on federal crime control policies and programs in favor of a multilevel analysis of governmental policies and practices designed to facilitate the creation of a white settler city. By collapsing the boundaries between interconnected systems and practices that are formally separate, Hernandez illuminates the common logics behind laws and policies that are often treated as unrelated. The intellectual act of drawing connections between these formally unrelated systems and practices is essential to the reform of our current system of criminal enforcement.

Mirow on Duguit

M. C. Mirow, Florida International University College of Law, has posted Léon Duguit, which will appear in Great Christian Jurists in French History, edited by Olivier Descamps and Rafael Domingo (Cambridge University Press, 2019):
French jurist Léon Duguit (1859-1928) was a theorist of the modern state and its relationship to law. His work on the nature of property and ownership, defining them as social functions, was an important step towards dismantling the conceptual wall between public and private law. He sought to apply sociological and scientific analysis to his study of law and the state. This chapter explores Duguit’s thought with particular reference to Roman Catholicism as a deeply embedded aspect of French culture. While little of his work expressly invokes Christianity, his turns towards solidarity and public service in the area of public law and his development of the social function of property in the area of private law reveal a level of concordance with Roman Catholic thought in late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century France. Despite Duguit’s lack of engagement with the Church’s teachings in his scientific exploration of the state and law, his relationship to Catholicism remains difficult to determine. The Church and Christianity presented themselves to Duguit as social and political phenomena to be recognized, respected, observed, and theorized. As a good lay sociologist of law, Duguit considered the Church in his work and throughout his life.

Appleman on the Forgotten History of Eugenics and Mass Incarceration

Laura I. Appleman, Willamette University College of Law, has posted Deviancy, Disability, and Dependency: The Forgotten History of Eugenics and Mass Incarceration, which is forthcoming in the Duke Law Journal:
Racism, harsh drug laws, and prosecutorial overreach have formed three widely-discussed explanations of the punitive carceral state. These three narratives, however, only partially explain where we are. Neglected in our discussion of mass incarceration is our largely-forgotten history of the long-term, wholesale institutionalization of the disabled. This form of mass detention, motivated by a continuing application of eugenics and persistent class-based discrimination, provides an important part of our history of imprisonment, shaping key contours of our current supersized correctional system. Only by fully exploring this forgotten narrative of long-term detention and isolation will policy makers be able to understand, diagnose, and solve the crisis of mass incarceration.

Gelter and Helleringer on Fiduciary Principles in European Civil Law

Martin Gelter, Fordham University School of Law, and Geneviève Helleringer, ESSEC Business School Paris, have posted Fiduciary Principles in European Civil Law Systems, which is forthcoming in the Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law, edited by Evan J. Criddle, Paul B. Miller & Robert H. Sitkoff:
This chapter surveys fiduciary principles in Western European civil law jurisdictions. Focusing on France and Germany, we suggest that functional equivalents to fiduciary duties have developed on the Continent, although they do not always carry exactly the same connotations as their common law counterparts. We suggest that the common law developed fiduciary duties as a distinct category largely for two reasons. First, the common law distinguished between law and equity, with fiduciary law developing within equity. By contrast, contracts law required consideration, which meant that fiduciary principles for gratuitous actions necessarily arose outside of contract law. Civil law generally did not develop this particular categorization. For example, the paradigmatic fiduciary relationship, the mandate (agency), is by default a gratuitous contract. Consequently, the lines between fiduciary and contract law remained blurred. Second, common law bargaining for contracts emphasizes part autonomy more strongly, while the civil law of contracts incorporated a stronger duty of good faith, thus making it more hospitable to an implied and inchoate loyalty obligation. The duty of loyalty in civil law jurisdictions is not categorically different from such duties, but exists on a continuum with them. Consequently, civil law duties of loyalty in those relationships that would be considered fiduciary under the common law can be seen as an extension of weaker loyalty obligations elsewhere. We survey the civil law of agency, equivalents of trust, as well as corporate and financial law. Germany and countries influenced by German law began to identify duties of loyalty in corporate and trust relationships in the middle of the 20th Century and identified them as a larger civil law principle permeating different areas of law. France and related jurisdictions have been more reluctant to adopt such duties, and have been more likely to rely on specific statutory prohibitions to reach similar results.

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Pritchard and Thompson on Texas Gulf Sulfur

Adam C. Pritchard, University of Michigan Law School, and Robert B. Thompson, Georgetown University Law Center, have posted Texas Gulf Sulphur and the Genesis of Corporate Liability Under Rule 10b:
This Essay explores the seminal role played by SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur in establishing Rule 10b-5’s use to create a remedy against corporations for misstatements made by their officers. The question of the corporation’s liability for private damages loomed large for the Second Circuit judges in Texas Gulf Sulphur, even though that question was not directly at issue in an SEC action for injunctive relief. The judges considered both construing narrowly "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security," and the requisite state of mind required for violating Rule 10b-5. We explore the choices of the Second Circuit judges by analyzing not only material available in the published opinions, but also the internal memos that the judges circulated among themselves prior to issuing the decision. Ultimately, the Second Circuit majority construed "in connection with" broadly, a choice ultimately validated by the Supreme Court. The Second Circuit's choice of negligence for SEC injunctive actions, however, was rejected by the Supreme Court for both private plaintiffs and the SEC.

Kealey on Policing Canada

Gregory S. Kealey, University of New Brunswick, published Spying on Canadians: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Security Service and the Origins of the Long Cold War with the University of Toronto Press in 2017. From the publisher: 
Spying on CanadiansAward winning author Gregory S. Kealey’s study of Canada’s security and intelligence community before the end of World War II depicts a nation caught up in the Red Scare in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution and tangled up with the imperial interests of first the United Kingdom and then the United States. 
Spying on Canadians brings together over twenty five years of research and writing about political policing in Canada. Through itse use of the Dominion Police and later the RCMP, Canada repressed the labour movement and the political left in defense of capital. The collection focuses on three themes; the nineteenth-century roots of political policing in Canada, the development of a national security system in the twentieth-century, and the ongoing challenges associated with research in this area owing to state secrecy and the inadequacies of access to information legislation. This timely collection alerts all Canadians to the need for the vigilant defence of civil liberties and human rights in the face of the ever increasing intrusion of the state into our private lives in the name of countersubversion and counterterrorism.
 In praise of the book:

"Canadians instantly recognize the CIA and Britain’s MI5 as dramatized in film, fiction and folklore. Popular culture overlooks our own history of domestic surveillance. Spying on Canadians turns on the lights. It is an absorbing account of a hammer in search of a nail." -Holly Doan

"Gregory S. Kealey is one of the recognized authorities in security studies. He does an excellent job in these essays of analyzing how the needs and opinions of their political masters and the nature of the perceived economic, political, and ethnic threats influenced the ideology of those who directed and implemented political policing." -Lorne Brown

"Gregory S. Kealey’s work on the history of security and, especially, the archival legwork involved in ‘digging’ for this restricted material is exceptional."-Patrizia Gentile

Further information is available here.

Three from Witt: on Emergency Constitutionalism, Adjudication, and Humanitarianism

John Fabian Witt (Yale Law School) has posted three new pieces on SSRN.

"A Lost Theory of American Emergency Constitutionalism" is forthcoming in Volume 36, no. 3, of the Law & History Review (August 2018):
In the wake of the Civil War, Columbia Law School professor Francis Lieber, architect of some of the Lincoln administration's most important legal strategies, set out to write a definitive text on martial law and the emergency power. Lieber’s text would have summed up his view of the legal lessons of the Civil War. Lieber died in 1872, leaving an unfinished manuscript to his son, Guido Norman Lieber, soon to become the Judge Advocate General of the Union Army. Norman Lieber worked on the manuscript but never finished it. Hidden deep in the younger Lieber’s papers in the National Archives, the manuscript summarizes a strand of thinking about constitutional emergencies that first emerged in the controversies over slavery, then animated Emancipation and the broader legal strategy of the Lincoln White House, before running headlong into the post-war backlash signaled by the Supreme Court’s 1866 decision in Ex Parte Milligan. Building on debates over martial law in Anglo-American empire, the Liebers’ thinking embraced a forceful but constrained approach that made a cabined form of necessity the central principle of emergency governance in the modern state.
We've mentioned previously Professor Witt's delivery of the Hands Lecture, on "Adjudication in the Age of Disagreement." Here's the full text, as published in Volume 86 of the Fordham Law Review (2017). 

The final piece is "Two Humanitarianisms in Ambrose Bierce's 'An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.'" Here's the abstract:
The oft-anthologized short story “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” by Union Army veteran Ambrose Bierce — long a staple of high school curricula and the subject of music videos, television, and film — is not typically thought of as a study in the dilemmas of humanitarian law. But it is. It depicts an execution for violation of the laws of war. Even better, the text embodies a central tension in the laws of war, one that emerged in Bierce’s time and persists today. On the one hand stands a sentimental humanitarianism that aims to minimize the human suffering of war; Henri Dunant’s book, A Memory of Solferino popularized this stance and helped establish the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863. On the other hand, a righteous humanitarianism chafes at the constraints that sentimental humanitarianism places on the pursuit of justice. Romantic nationalists like the Prussian-American political thinker Francis Lieber, whose code of rules for the Union Army was published a year after Dunant’s book, embrace the righteous justice of particular causes. Bierce’s “Owl Creek” straddles the two planks of the modern laws of war, conveying the power of both views.

Henderson on an Early African-American Female Lawyer

Taja-Nia Y. Henderson, Rutgers-Newark School of Law, has posted  "I Shall Talk to My Own People": The Intersectional Life and Times of Lutie A. Lytle, which appeared in the Iowa Law Review 102 (2017): 1983-2015:
Lutie A. Lytle (wiki)
In the fall of 1898, the Chicago Tribune hailed Lutie A. Lytle of Topeka as the “only female law instructor in the world.” Notwithstanding this purported shattering of the legal academy’s glass ceiling, Lytle’s accomplishments — her path to the professoriate, and her career in the years following her appointment to the faculty of a Nashville law school — have been largely lost to historians of legal education. She is not among those honored or commemorated by our profession, and her name is largely unknown beyond a small circle of interest. The biographical sketch that follows fills this scholarly gap through an examination of Lytle as a historical figure, using contemporary newspaper accounts and other primary source material to provide context for her achievements and linking her life to previously understudied legal, political and social movements.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Trubek on the Wisconsin Center for Public Representation

Louise G. Trubek, University of Wisconsin Law School, has posted Social Justice Advocacy and Innovation: The Wisconsin Center for Public Representation 1974-Present, which is forthcoming in the Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy 25 (2018): 221-255:
Social justice practice is undergoing a revival. In a period of renewed energy we often look forward. But careful study of the existing structure and paths taken in the past is essential for successful initiatives. The history of the Center for Public Representation (CPR), a mid-western public interest law firm founded in 1974, contributes to the study. The CPR experience offers numerous lessons for those who seek to reinvent social justice lawyering: the importance of experimentation, the need for coordination of the local and national, and recognition of the potential law schools can play in the revival. The 40-year history was driven by a mixture of local politics and legal culture, individual passion and energy, and national movements and resources. There is continuity but it is possible to show three distinct periods in the life of the firm. The founding moment took place from 1974-84. The founders chose a non-profit tax-exempt format that was a hybrid of a free-standing public interest law firm and a University of Wisconsin law school clinic. With long-term funding unavailable, CPR developed innovative funding strategies and explored multiple arenas and modalities. The second moment embraces the late 1980s and 90s. CPR paid more attention to poverty and opened a community law office while the school added a course on poverty law. The state of Wisconsin privatized some health and welfare services forcing the lawyers and students to develop new ways to voice the concerns of the affected people. The CPR hybrid was under stress as support for clinics grew and for public interest law waned. In the third moment, 2002-present, CPR reinvented itself as the Economic Justice Center (EJC). The redesign was prompted by financial difficulties, shifts in legal and political atmosphere, and the success of clinical teaching. The free-standing public interest law firm was cut back. The history highlights the choices facing today's practitioners; how to develop long-term strategies, initiate networks and scale up practices, utilize law school resources, and exploit available technology.

Newman on the Sherman Act [of Revenge]

Patrick Newman, Florida Southern College, has posted Revenge: John Sherman, Russell Alger and the Origins of the Sherman Act, a prepublication draft of the article that appears in volume 174 of Public Choice:
John Sherman (ca 1846) (LC)
This paper argues that Senator John Sherman of Ohio was motivated to introduce an antitrust bill in late 1889 partly as a way of enacting revenge on his political rival, General and former Governor Russell Alger of Michigan, because Sherman believed that Alger personally had cost him the presidential nomination at the 1888 Republican national convention. When discussing his bill on the Senate floor and elsewhere, Sherman repeatedly brought up Alger’s relationship, which in reality was rather tenuous, with the well-known Diamond Match Company. The point of mentioning Alger was to hurt Alger’s future political career and his presidential aspirations in 1892. Sherman was able to pursue his revenge motive by combining it with the broader Republican goals of preserving high tariffs and attacking the trusts. As a result, this paper reinforces previous public choice literature arguing that the 1890 Sherman Act was not passed in the public interest, but instead advanced private interests.

The Late Ronald Rotunda's Abridgment of Beveridge's Life of Marshall

We’ve just learned of both the publication of John Marshall and the Cases that United the States of America: Beveridge's Abridged Life of John Marshall, and the death of its author, Ronald D. Rotunda, most recently of the Chapman University Fowler School of Law.  It appears under the Twelve Tables Press imprint of the Carolina Academic Press:
Albert Beveridge’s classic, highly sympathetic biography of John Marshall long dominated Americans’ understanding of the great Chief Justice. For generations, this winner of a 1920 Pulitzer Prize was the starting point for both popular and scholarly interpretations of Marshall, and it was second to the justice’s opinions in shaping accounts of American constitutional history. Contemporary readers put off by the length of Senator Beveridge’s four-volume work have Ronald Rotunda to thank for this judicious abridgment, which will make the book accessible to a new generation.

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Hulsebosch on Constitutionalism and Foreign Capital Investment in the Early Republic

Daniel J. Hulsebosch, New York University School of Law, has two new posts.  The first is From Imperial to International Law: Protecting Foreign Expectations in the Early United States and appears in UCLA Law Review Discourse 65 (2018): 4-18:
This Essay argues that several principles associated with modern international investment law and dispute resolution arose in the wake of the American Revolution, as the revolutionaries and Britons sought to restructure trade relations, previously regulated by imperial law, under new treaties and the law of nations. They negotiated such problems as the currency in which international debts would be paid; the ability of foreign creditors pursue domestic collection remedies; whether creditors had to exhaust those remedies before their nation could resort to international arbitration; and the form of state-state arbitration of private disputes. The specific setting of these negotiations — the aftermath of a colonial settler revolution — narrowed the compass of disagreement, compared to many later postcolonial negotiations. In addition, the negotiations assumed that the exhaustion of national remedies remained the standard method of resolving private debt disputes. Notwithstanding these important differences, the principles and institutions developed after an imperial civil war influenced the development of international investment law.
The second is Being Seen Like a State: How Americans (and Britons) Built the Constitutional Infrastructure of a Developing Nation, which appears in the William & Mary Law Review 59 (2018): 1239-1319:
This Article develops the argument that the Federal Constitution of 1787 was conceptualized, drafted, and put into operation not only for American citizens but also for foreign audiences. In a world without supranational governing institutions, a constitution — at least, the Federal Constitution — might serve to promote peaceable international relations based on reciprocal trade and open credit. That at least was the Enlightenment-inflected hope. Did it work? If early Americans engaged in constitution-making in large part to demonstrate their capacity for self-government, self discipline, and commercial openness to foreign audiences, did anyone notice? Or was it all, regardless of diplomatic purposes and consistent with the conventional account of the American Founding, just an intramural affair? This Article argues that many foreigners did notice, not least because some of them had participated in the process of reform. Although no foreigners intervened directly in drafting or ratification, international demands, incentives, and reactions shaped the way that leading American Framers pursued constitution making. After a “foreign ratification debate” that stretched into the first years of the Washington Administration, Britain normalized diplomatic relations with the United States and substantial capital investment followed. In 1791, the British Board of Trade approvingly analyzed the Constitution in a report designed to guide the Privy Council as it drafted instructions for its first official envoy to the United States. Within fifteen years, Britons were the largest holders of foreign investment in the United States, including state and federal “domestic debt,” or the restructured wartime certificates and loans that had floated the Revolution. In sum, Britons ultimately financed much of the project of American independence, and contemporaries believed that these credit relations would reduce, without eliminating, the prospect of renewed war.

A Job with Bard High School Early College

[We have the following announcement.  We're told that BHSEC is looking for a legal historian and that to topic of the course is "open, provided that the class include New York legal history as a component."]

The Bard High School Early Colleges (BHSEC) seek to improve public education by offering a diverse group of public school students access to an enriched, challenging liberal arts and sciences college academic environment, thereby closing the gap between high school and college and giving underserved students the opportunity for an excellent college. Students graduate from BHSEC prepared to take upper level college courses, earn a baccalaureate degree, launch successful careers, and contribute to society.  BHSEC provides younger scholars with a tuition-free, credit bearing college course of study in the liberal arts and sciences following the 9th and 10th grades. Students are taught by college faculty in seminar classes; they receive up to 60 college credits and an associate in arts (A.A.) degree from Bard College, concurrently with a high school diploma. Bard Early Colleges begin preparing students for college work as early as the 9th grade and offer ongoing guidance and academic supports.  BHSEC operates as a partnership between Bard College and the New York City Department of Education and is accredited as a branch campus of Bard College.

Thanks to a generous grant from the Historical Society of the New York Courts (HSNYC), Bard High School Early College Manhattan seeks applications for the fall 2017 Judith S. Kaye Fellowship in Humanities and the Law. This fellowship was established to fund the hiring of a visiting scholar or a faculty member each year to develop and teach a semester long college elective on the subjects of Justice and the Courts, Legal History in NYS, New York State Constitutional Law or topics more broadly related to the role of the courts in establishing and maintaining democracy in the United States and in New York State, more particularly. Course proposals that focus on a more narrow aspect of the law, such as Search & Seizure, the Right to Privacy, or the concept of Equality, are also encouraged and considered. 

The Judith S. Kaye Fellowship is intended to create a wealth of curricula developed for young people that could be made widely available to teachers around the state and country through HSNYC's web-site and other resources, to open a new discipline of study and inquiry for BHSECs' diverse students, leading not only to more educated citizens but to possible careers in law or criminal justice, and to sponsor scholarship in the field and contribute to the knowledge of the role of the New York Courts in shaping U.S. history and current events.  Between 20 and 25 students would be able to register for the Kaye Fellow's course each semester it is offered.

The Kaye Fellowship will bring a distinguished scholar to the BHSEC Campus at 525 East Houston Street to teach one three-credit college course in a one-semester appointment.  The class will meet three times a week for 50 minutes over a semester running from early September to mid-January.  This position is open to scholars in legal history, American constitutional law or legal studies. The Fellowship offers a modest stipend of $6500, and gives scholars the opportunity to develop innovative early college curriculum around the themes of Justice and the Role of the Courts, as well as to advise students and to present to the BHSEC community and the Historic Society of the Courts of New York.

Low-Tech Tools for Structuring a Book

One of the big questions any author faces is how to structure a book. The options are, at least in theory, endless. And this can be a good thing: imagining a variety of fanciful options is one way to get out of a rut. In my case, however, the range of options was a little more confined. Since I was writing about the military chaplaincy over almost a century, I knew Enlisting Faith needed to move chronologically to make sense.

But deciding on a chronological narrative clarified only the broadest possible contours of the structure. I knew the book would begin in 1917, with the American entrance into World War I, because the creation of the draft and concomitant mass mobilization of American men into the armed forces created pressure to rethink the chaplaincy. More specifically, it set off decades of conflict and negotiation—within and between military officials, religious leaders, and concerned citizens—about the religious composition of the chaplaincy.

However, I had no idea how many chapters the narrative would need, where all the chapter breaks would be, or at what point the book would end. (These are, of course, inter-related questions.)

I didn’t have many answers, but I had a lot of ideas, thanks to a very productive dissertation defense that focused less on the dissertation as a product and more on its potential as a book. As a result, I stepped forward into the book process with a lot of suggestions to consider and questions to contemplate (aided by extraordinary notes graciously taken by legal historian Elizabeth Papp Kamali).

Because I had a 2-year postdoc at the Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University in St. Louis with very light teaching responsibilities, I had a lot of time to puzzle my way forward. I use “puzzle” deliberately because I spent much of my time between my May 2014 dissertation defense and May 2015 book proposal experimenting with different plans for structuring the book.

Throughout this process, I used a number of very low-tech tools.

First: conversations with colleagues and mentors. As I debated the appropriate endpoint, agonizing over what date or event made the most sense and wondering whether it was even possible to access sources close to the present, I spent a lot of time talking. Access to scholars who hadn't been part of my dissertation process offered fresh perspectives that challenged me--in good, productive ways. Many of these discussions were verbal thought experiments: what if I end in 1975 or 1988 or 2001? Is the book complete without Katcoff v. Marsh, Goldman v. Weinberger, or the War on Terror? The back-and-forth between my argument and my periodization helped clarify both.

Second: a whiteboard. When I arrived in St. Louis, I asked for a white board to hang in my office. For several months, I started each week by writing a new possible chapter outline on the board and contemplating it all week. Should I keep the 6 chapters of the dissertation? Expand to 9 to create three sections of three chapters each? Did I even want separate sections? This, too, was an experimental and iterative process. The first two chapters stayed stable. The middle chapters kept changing. The final chapters changed even more. If the outline seemed viable, I’d take a picture before erasing it. If I hated it, I just erased it and moved on. This created a low-stakes way to test out structure without substantially altering any prose.

By the end, I had a chapter outline that I felt worked on multiple levels:

(1) The different colors demonstrated pairs of chapters that sit within important temporal boundaries (World War I/interwar years; World War II; Korea and the Cold War; Vietnam and its aftermath). 

(2) The indentations marked a different set of pairs: chapters that mirrored one another in some fashion. The titles of chapter 1 and chapter 8 show this most explicitly. Chapter 1, “Mobilizing Faith,” focuses on how the chaplaincy begins to change as a result of the military using religion to pursue martial goals. Chapter 8, “Fighting with Fight,” highlights the legal, political, and religious conflicts that ensued—What are the boundaries of state management of religion? What religions are included and excluded? How do American politics of race and gender intersect in the chaplaincy? Thinking about mirrored processes helped me decide on the appropriate endpoint: the appointment of the first Muslim chaplain in 1994.

(3) The roman numerals indicated three major periods in which war prompted the chaplaincy to forge a new sensibility about American religion that percolated through civilian society. In turn, soldiers and civilians reacted, often claiming or seeking new rights and transforming religion and state anew.
These overlapping and braided structures organized Enlisting Faith, but only the last is explicitly mentioned in the book. This was intentional. As a historian, I needed to build the structures that undergirded and stabilized my argument. I therefore crafted numerous charts, tables, and diagrams to use as blueprints I could reference as I worked on the book. But as a writer, I didn't want exposed beams or visible cables to distract my reader, so I layered the narrative onto this foundation.
Third: sticky notes. As I worked on the book structure, I also started playing with the structure of individual chapters. Some were easier than others, but when I got stuck I borrowed a technique from the world of design-thinking: use post-its to map and remap the flow of ideas. Unfortunately I don’t have a picture, but at one point, I mapped chapter 5 on a wall of my office using different colors for different topics and post-its for sub-topics to work out an order that flowed effectively. Here too, the goal was to try out and rearrange ideas without needing to constantly shuffle paragraphs. Once I settled on an order that flowed, I went back to my prose.

I know there are tools like Scrivener that allow some of this experimentation on the screen. As a visual and tactile thinker, however, I found a whiteboard and markers, post-its and pens, to be quite effective.

To put some of the dissertation-to-book changes in numbers, I offer the following comparison. My dissertation was 125,000 words (excluding notes) spread over 6 chapters. Enlisting Faith is 100,000 words (excluding notes) relayed in 8 chapters. As you can see, the book is shorter than the dissertation and includes more chapters. In my next post, I’ll talk about writing, revising, and sculpting prose.

Kedar, Amara & Yiftachel on Israel/Palestine conflict

Now out with Stanford University Press is Emptied Lands: A Legal Geography of Bedouin Rights in the Negev by Alexandre Kedar (University of Haifa), Ahmad Amara (Van Leer Jerusalem Institute), and Oren Yiftachel (Ben-Gurion University). From the press:

Emptied Lands investigates the protracted legal, planning, and territorial
conflict between the settler Israeli state and indigenous Bedouin citizens over traditional lands in southern Israel/Palestine. The authors place this dispute in historical, legal, geographical, and international-comparative perspectives, providing the first legal geographic analysis of the "dead Negev doctrine" used by Israel to dispossess and forcefully displace Bedouin inhabitants in order to Judaize the region. The authors reveal that through manipulative use of Ottoman, British and Israeli laws, the state has constructed its own version of terra nullius. Yet, the indigenous property and settlement system still functions, creating an ongoing resistance to the Jewish state. Emptied Lands critically examines several key land claims, court rulings, planning policies and development strategies, offering alternative local, regional, and international routes for justice.
Praise for the book:

"People are dispossessed not only with guns and bulldozers, but also with legal practices and strategies. Emptied Lands reveals how the painfully named and legally invoked Dead Negev Doctrine facilitates the continued dispossession of Bedouins in the Negev, the most intense and protracted land dispute within Israel. Drawing from decades of activism and scholarship, Kedar, Amara, and Yiftachel provide a powerful challenge to the doctrine, creating space for better forms of legality." -Nicholas Blomley

"Three of the best critical scholars of contemporary Palestine have successfully combined legal, geographical, and political analysis into a forensic study of how Israel has weaponized the law against the most vulnerable of all inhabitants of Palestine, the Bedouins. A remarkable multidisciplinary feat, this book provides an essential understanding of settler colonialism." -Eyal Weizman

Further information is available here.

The Rogers Collection at BC Law

One of the unexpected pleasures of presenting in the Boston College Legal History Roundtable was the chance to a view new exhibition in the Daniel R. Coquilette Rare Book Room, The James S. Rogers Collection:
This exhibition features books donated to the Rare Book Room by Professor James S. Rogers. Professor Rogers, who retired from Boston College Law School in 2017, spent his years in academia teaching and writing in the areas of contracts, modern commercial law (particularly payment systems), the law of restitution, and the history of Anglo-American commercial law.

Professor Rogers started building his rare book collection when he was researching and writing The Early History of the Law of Bills and Notes (Cambridge University Press, 1995). Years of teaching law students and working on the Uniform Commercial Code led him “to the realization that something was amiss with the law of negotiable instruments [e.g., checks, promissory notes] as embodied in Articles 3 and 4 of the American Uniform Commercial Code.” Professor Rogers notes, “Ironically, concern for the future of commercial law led me to examine its past.”
The exhibit, which runs until July, was curated by Laurel Davis and Katie Lewis.  A downloadable version of the exhibit catalogue is here.

Monday, March 19, 2018

VOA, the Supreme Court, and the Resistance?

I don’t know that the Voice of America intended to signal the rest of the world that the rule of law yet prevails in the United States when it commenced a series on the Supreme Court this weekend, but right now I’m for anything that might bolster popular support for an independent judiciary, at home as well as abroad.  VOA urges us to watch, in the coming months “for text, audio, and video that explain what the Supreme Court is, why it is important (and disputed) in American culture, and how the justices ruled on some of the most important cases in modern U.S. history.”  The first post is The Rise of the Supreme Court.

Ruskola on Corporation Law in Late Imperial China

Teemu Ruskola, Emory Law, has posted Corporation Law in Late Imperial China, which is forthcoming in Research Handbook on the History of Corporate and Company Law, edited by Harwell Wells (Edward Elgar Press 2018):
According to received wisdom, there is no such thing as a Chinese tradition of corporation law. In Max Weber’s pithy conclusion, “The legal forms and societal foundations for capitalist ‘enterprise’ were absent in traditional China.” Although this claim is intuitively appealing, it is incorrect, or at least wildly exaggerated. Drawing on earlier work, I argue in this chapter that in late imperial China there existed a tradition of “corporation law,” to use a term that admittedly sounds anachronistic. Conventional wisdom to the contrary notwithstanding, and despite Confucian hostility to commerce, even before the introduction of European law at the turn of the century, the Chinese operated “clan corporations,” or relatively large commercial enterprises organized whose existence was justified by the legal fiction of kinship. Because of this fiction, these enterprises were governed by the norms of family law which in turn performed many of the key functions of corporation law.

Walker's "Burning House"

Anders Walker, Saint Louis University School of Law, has published The Burning House: Jim Crow and the Making of Modern America (Yale University Press):
In this dramatic reexamination of the Jim Crow South, Anders Walker demonstrates that racial segregation fostered not simply terror and violence, but also diversity, one of our most celebrated ideals. He investigates how prominent intellectuals like Robert Penn Warren, James Baldwin, Eudora Welty, Ralph Ellison, Flannery O’Connor, and Zora Neale Hurston found pluralism in Jim Crow, a legal system that created two worlds, each with its own institutions, traditions, even cultures. The intellectuals discussed in this book all agreed that black culture was resilient, creative, and profound, brutally honest in its assessment of American history. By contrast, James Baldwin likened white culture to a “burning house,” a frightening place that endorsed racism and violence to maintain dominance. Why should black Americans exchange their experience for that? Southern whites, meanwhile, saw themselves preserving a rich cultural landscape against the onslaught of mass culture and federal power, a project carried to the highest levels of American law by Supreme Court justice and Virginia native Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Anders Walker shows how a generation of scholars and judges has misinterpreted Powell’s definition of diversity in the landmark case Regents v. Bakke, forgetting its Southern origins and weakening it in the process. By resituating the decision in the context of Southern intellectual history, Walker places diversity on a new footing, independent of affirmative action but also free from the constraints currently placed on it by the Supreme Court. With great clarity and insight, he offers a new lens through which to understand the history of civil rights in the United States.

Chopas's "Searching for Subversives"

Mary Elizabeth Basile Chopas has published Searching for Subversives: The Story of Italian Internment in Wartime America (University of North Carolina Press):
When the United States entered World War II, Italian nationals living in this country were declared enemy aliens and faced with legal restrictions. Several thousand aliens and a few U.S. citizens were arrested and underwent flawed hearings, and hundreds were interned. Shedding new light on an injustice often overshadowed by the mass confinement of Japanese Americans, Mary Elizabeth Basile Chopas traces how government and military leaders constructed wartime policies affecting Italian residents. Based on new archival research into the alien enemy hearings, this in-depth legal analysis illuminates a process not widely understood. From presumptive guilt in the arrest and internment based on membership in social and political organizations, to hurdles in attaining American citizenship, Chopas uncovers many layers of repression not heretofore revealed in scholarship about the World War II home front.

In telling the stories of former internees and persons excluded from military zones as they attempted to resume their lives after the war, Chopas demonstrates the lasting social and cultural effects of government policies on the Italian American community, and addresses the modern problem of identifying threats in a largely loyal and peaceful population.
Among the many interesting features of the book is Chopas’s discovery in the papers of Erwin Griswold files relating to that future Harvard law dean’s service on Boston’s alien enemy hearing board.  TOC after the jump.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Sunday Book Review Roundup

In The New York Review of Books is an essay by Adam Hochschild featuring reviews of Armed in America: A History of Gun Rights from Colonial Militias to Concealed Carry by Patrick J. Charles, Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, and Chosen Country: A Rebellion in the West by James Pogue.

Image result for WAGES FOR HOUSEWORK: THE NEW YORK COMMITTEE 1972–1977Sylvia Federici and Arlen Austin's Wages for Housework The New York Committee 1972–1977: History, Theory, Documents is reviewed in The Nation.  The text, says the review,"is one of those rare books that takes the reader inside the theory and practice of a radical movement."

In The Times Literary Supplement, Amy Murrell Taylor's reviews of Eugene Genovese's posthumous The Sweetness of Life: Southern Planters at HomeWhile emphasizing the many "troubling" aspects of Genovese's posthumous work, Murrell Taylor concludes her review by evoking  the questions that animated Genovese's earlier work and suggests that it "is as necessary as ever" for scholars to center the interiorities of enslaved persons and "ask about their point of view."

In the Los Angeles Review of Books is a review of Nino and Me: My Unusual Friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia by Bryan Garner.

At H-Net is a review of Law and Order in Anglo-Saxon England by Tom Lambert.

Theodore Vial's Modern Religion, Modern Race is reviewed at Marginalia.
Image result for behemoth joshua freeman

Joshua B. Freeman's Behemoth: A History of the Factory and the Making of the Modern World is reviewed in the New York Times.  Freeman's work, the review argues, offers a timely demystification of the nostalgia surrounding manufacturing and serves to poignantly remind readers "how truly disruptive the manufacturing age was."

Also in the Times is a review of Victorians Undone: Tales of the Flesh in the Age of Decorum by Kathryn Hughes.

At the New Books Network Daniel Livesay speaks about his Children of Uncertain Fortune: Mixed-Race Jamaicans in Britain and the Atlantic Family, 1733-1833.  Kali Nicole Gross discusses her Hannah Mary Tabbs and the Disembodied Torso: A Tale of Race, Sex, and Violence in America.  Matthew Clavin introduces his Aiming for Pensacola Fugitive Slaves on the Atlantic and Southern Frontiers. Finally, Yair Mintzker is interviewed about his The Many Deaths of Jew Süss: The Notorious Trial and Execution of an Eighteenth-Century Court Jew.

Saturday, March 17, 2018

Weekend Roundup

  • As best we can make out from this story in the Providence Journal, Frederick Schroeder Jr., of Providence, who, according to his attorney, “buys boxes of documents at estate sales,” was auctioning off on eBay a docket book from Inferior Court of the Common Pleas in Providence County for the years 1746 to 1749, when “a legal history researcher at the University of Pennsylvania” alerted Rhode Island state archivist, Ashley Selima.  Bidding opened at $9.99 and had reached $960 when the state obtained an injunction halting the sale. 
  • H. T. Smith, FIU Law, recently spoke to the Dade County Bar Association on the “history of the challenges Black lawyers have faced over the years in Miami-Dade County.”
Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.

Friday, March 16, 2018

O'Melinn on the Common-Law Origins of Copyright

Liam O'Melinn, Ohio Northern University, has posted The Ghost of Millar v. Taylor: The Mythical Common Law Origins of Copyright and the Copyright Servitude:
The Ghost of Common Law Copyright walks abroad once more, relishing the prospect of “the next great copyright act” and tempting us to inquire anew whether the origins of copyright are to be found in the common law. Despite being answered time and again in the negative, this question preys upon modern sensibilities predisposed to the view that artists who painted on the walls of ancient caves had a primordial right to prevent “pirates” from copying their works. The belief that the common law has always provided creators with a right against unauthorized reproduction is quietly but increasingly influential, and it has helped to propel copyright law toward limitless expansion. According to the common-law view, most famously expressed in Millar v. Taylor in England in 1769, this right antedates any positive enactments made on its behalf, and the earliest copyright statutes simply secured or augmented rights already in existence. Millar was overruled in Donaldson v. Becket in 1774, but its spirit has lingered on, haunting the legal landscape of copyright. This theory has served as the basis of an increasing tendency toward the retrospective creation of property in nearly any “subject matter” -- as this copyright theory describes cultural exchange -- that is perceived to be of potential value. The common law view has made its influence felt in a distension of culture, a distortion of the law, and a tendency to create a boundless form of property. This property without bounds, in turn, is justified by the recursive insertion of an author or creator whose original right provides the ostensible basis of current title.

In American law this approach has rested on three propositions: That authors in England always had a right to prevent unauthorized publication of their writings, that Americans carried this right with them from England to their new colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and that as between the two landmark decisions in English copyright law, Millar v. Taylor and Donaldson v. Beckett, Americans chose the view taken in Millar that copyright was a perpetual right originating in the common law. This final claim is ostensibly bolstered by the belief that Americans knew the result in Millar but not in Donaldson, and that when they began to pass their own copyright statutes they were passing the familiar common law result into law. This article focuses on these claims, arguing that there was no common law copyright before the passage of the Statute of Anne, and no norm prohibiting unauthorized publication. It would be closer to the mark to say that unauthorized publication was the norm, and that our timeless right of first publication is actually a much more modern and statutory creature than we have imagined. Americans had no common law inheritance to carry with them to the colonies, and they actually did know the result in Donaldson shortly after it was decided, leaving no reason to believe that American copyright law followed the Millar decision.

The article concludes with a consideration of the modern implications of the success of the myth of common law copyright. These include a distortion of culture to make it fit the contours of copyright law, the increased dedication of the law to the protection of a species of property that knows no bounds, and the imposition what I term the “copyright servitude,” which protects the interests of copyright holders by limiting the uses that can be made even of lawfully-purchased products, and by impeding the development of alternative means of transmission of information.