Customer Reviews

The Political and Legal Philosophy of James Wilson: 1742-1798

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The previous critique misses the point of a limited one person biography. This book overemphasizes the contribution of Wilson's contribution to America's founding as much as any book that focuses on one thinker overestimates his or her role in any given aspect of history.

Wilson, as Hall clearly states, was a democrat. Of course this term, as in the case of the book, is used in its historical sense. Terms, ideologies change throughout time. Liberal now is far from what liberal once was. Wilson, in the historical context was a democrat (this of course is compared to the thinkers in America during the founding).

This histiography is one that needs to be taken seriously by anyone who is interested in the political philosophy and James Wilson. Of course, as previous commentor has lacked to mention, one must be concerned and understand history if he or she is interested in enjoying this book. A narrow look as social science and firm principles which we have defined as of present will greatly obscure ones understanding of this work- which would be a pitty.

Mark David Hall has tried to fill a void in the historiography. A biography of James Wilson was certainly overdue by 1997. Hall does shed light on Wilson's unique epistomology and how he integrated it into the liberal and republican ideology of the time. Indeed, Hall demonstrates how Wilson's belief in a "moral sense" that existed in all human beings necessitated an optimism toward popular rule, an optimism that surpassed that of many of the other Founders by the late 1780s.
Nonetheless, this work has numerous unforgivable mistakes. Hall over-emphasizes Wilson's democratic tendencies, going so far as to actually call him a democrat -- a title that Wilson would have abhored as much as aristocrat. Hall notes Wilson's belief that majoritarian government had to have its power checked, but this aspect of Wilson's ideology he gives slight attention to. He makes a disengenuous argument that Wilson believed that balance of power was needed to check corruption rather than the democracy. This distinction is hollow. To believe that democratic government needs to be limited is equivalent to believing that democratic rule needs to be checked. The truth is that though Wilson did believe that the people could be trusted more than did the other Founders, he also believed in limiting popular power. Wilson disagreed at many points how these checks ought to be achieved and to what degree they were to be implimented. But the same can be said for most of the Founders. Wilson is better classified along with the majority of the other Founders as a republican and a liberal -- a republican willing to allow the people a slightly greater role in authority, but a republican nonetheless, not a democrat.
Hall also over-emphasizes Wilson's role in developing the governmental ideology of the new republic. Likewise he often underestimates the activity of others. This work also fails to place Wilson's ideas in the context of broader, external, intellectual activity, therefore giving the reader the impression that he originated more than he did. Finally, this author fails to chart Wilson's intellectual development. There seems to be an assumption that what Wilson believed in 1789 was what he believed in 1768 soon after he arrived in America.
This is a book that I wanted to like and it does have some redeeming value, but ultimately it is too flawed to allow any more than a single star. I will be looking for a new biography of Wilson, soon.