Buy new:
$31.73$31.73
$3.99 delivery January 14 - 21
Ships from: TiffanyShops Sold by: TiffanyShops
Save with Used - Good
$20.70$20.70
$3.99 delivery January 14 - 21
Ships from: TiffanyShops Sold by: TiffanyShops
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States Paperback – Bargain Price, February 25, 2003
Purchase options and add-ons
The bitter and protracted struggle between President Thomas Jefferson and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall defined the basic constitutional relationship between the executive and judicial branches of government. More than one hundred fifty years later, their clashes still reverberate in constitutional debates and political battles.
In this dramatic and fully accessible account of these titans of the early republic and their fiercely held ideas, James F. Simon brings to life the early history of the nation and sheds new light on the highly charged battle to balance the powers of the federal government and the rights of the states. A fascinating look at two of the nation's greatest statesmen and shrewdest politicians, What Kind of Nation presents a cogent, unbiased assessment of their lasting impact on American government.
- Print length352 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherSimon & Schuster
- Publication dateFebruary 25, 2003
- Dimensions5.5 x 0.9 x 8.4 inches
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers (Simon & Schuster Lincoln Library)PaperbackFREE Shipping on orders over $35 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Friday, Jan 10Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Editorial Reviews
Review
A. J. Langguth
author of "Patriots: The Men Who Started the American Revolution" and "Our Vietnam"
James Simon has written a legal suspense story, with John Marshall trying to wrench the Supreme Court from a cramped room in the Capitol building to its rightful place under the Constitution while a suspicious President Jefferson fights him bitterly from behind the scenes. "What Kind of Nation" helps us to understand the court battles that go on today, no less partisan, no less urgent.
Joseph J. EllisThe New York Times Book ReviewA study of the political and legal struggle between these icons of American history...A major contribution...A model of narrative history written by someone who knows the law.
A. J. Langguthauthor of Patriots: The Men Who Started the American Revolution and Our VietnamJames Simon has written a legal suspense story, with John Marshall trying to wrench the Supreme Court from a cramped room in the Capitol building to its rightful place under the Constitution while a suspicious President Jefferson fights him bitterly from behind the scenes. What Kind of Nation helps us to understand the court battles that go on today, no less partisan, no less urgent.
The Washington PostJames Simon adds a patina of freshness and telling detail to this familiar story. He carefully traces the origins of the rivalry...but is at his best when he gets around to the great cases, not merely Marbury but others, especially the Burr treason trial...What Kind of Nation is a fine read.
The American ProspectJames Simon retells this splendid story in clear and elegant prose. For once the publisher's subtitle is not exaggeration -- the result is, at least in legal terms, an epic of the founding, featuring fascinating antagonists, enormous consequences, and alternating episodes of nobility and treachery.
About the Author
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
After he was selected to lead the Republicans' presidential ticket in 1800, Jefferson projected the image of a political ascetic, wishing only that his pure republican principles be put before the voters. He told his opponent, John Adams, that the presidential contest had nothing to do with their personalities, and everything to do with their conflicting political principles. "Were we both to die today," Jefferson told Adams, "tomorrow two other names would be put in the place of ours, without any change in the motion of the machinery."
As the candidate of lofty principle, Jefferson often appeared to view the day-to-day business of winning the presidency as beneath him, or at least irrelevant to his role as the Republican standard-bearer. His determination to avoid any opportunity to bring public attention to himself was apparent when he made plans to return to Virginia after the adjournment of the spring congressional term. He wrote Virginia Governor Monroe that he hoped to meet with him in Richmond before returning to Monticello. But he cautioned Monroe that their meeting should take place without the public's knowledge.
"Besides my hatred of ceremony," Jefferson wrote Monroe, "I believe it better to avoid every occasion for the impression of sentiments which might drag me into the newspapers." He acknowledged that the Federalists had put public displays to powerful political use, rallying support by furnishing occasions for "the flame of public opinion to break out from time to time." But Jefferson thought such public events unnecessary, even detrimental, to the achievement of his ambitious goals.
Despite his public image of detachment, Jefferson was anything but aloof in his behind-the-scenes political activities. He and Madison, in particular, discussed both broad issues of political principle and specific strategies for partisan advantage. Jefferson had firm ideas on how to exploit the growing fissure between the moderate and conservative Federalist factions over the second Paris peace mission and the related issue of a standing army. He knew that Adams and Marshall supported the peace mission and wanted to maintain the army only for defensive purposes, whereas the High Federalists, led by Hamilton, opposed any settlement with France and favored an expansive, permanent military presence.
Jefferson believed it was important that the Republicans give the warring Federalist factions no reason to unite on the issues. Republicans should continue to advocate a peace settlement with France without saying or doing anything that could provide the Federalists a pretext for keeping a large standing army in peacetime.
At the same time that he was setting the broad parameters of the Republicans' national strategy, Jefferson maintained a very active interest in his party's organization, down to the local county level -- as his directive to Virginia's Republican chairman to distribute Thomas Cooper's Political Arithmetic demonstrated. He was, moreover, vigilant in urging that the party's message be widely disseminated by the fervent Republican press and the party's most effective pamphleteers. He could justifiably deny that he was "the Chief Juggler" of partisan Republican writers like Duane, Cooper, and Callender -- but he knew and encouraged their work.
Jefferson also demonstrated a sure grasp of the electoral process. He prided himself on his ability to know how each state's electors were likely to vote, and indeed boasted that in the 1796 presidential election his prediction was within one or two votes of the outcome. He was somewhat less confident of his prognostications in 1800, but nonetheless ventured to make an educated estimate of the Republicans' chances. He conceded the New England states to Adams and counted most of the Southern and Western states in the Republican column, though he was concerned about Federalist inroads in the Carolinas. The election, Jefferson thought, would be decided in the Middle Atlantic states.
Jefferson had received reliable reports that the two houses of the Pennsylvania legislature -- one controlled by Federalists, the other by Republicans -- were deadlocked and would not agree on an electoral law, thereby neutralizing the state in the presidential election. Despite assurances from Republican supporters in New Jersey that his party would prevail, Jefferson was not prepared to make such a prediction. His attention, therefore, turned to New York, and more particularly to New York City, where the April election of the city's representatives to the state assembly would determine which party would control the state's electors -- and probably the national election.
The fate of the presidential election was, in effect, placed in the hands of the rival political leaders in New York, the Federalists' Alexander Hamilton and the Republicans' Aaron Burr. During the campaign, Burr not only demonstrated superior organizational skills but also proved to be a better strategist than Hamilton. Hamilton's task appeared somewhat easier than Burr's, since the Federalist incumbents already held a majority in the state assembly. But the Federalists made a fatal miscalculation by naming a lackluster list of candidates from New York City for the new assembly. Burr had shrewdly withheld his own slate of Republican candidates until the Federalists had named theirs. Once the Federalist candidates had been announced, Burr stunned Hamilton and other members of his party by announcing a dazzling Republican ticket that included some of the most illustrious names from the American Revolution -- former Governor George Clinton, Judge Brockholst Livingston, and General Horatio Gates.
Hamilton was furious that he had been outmaneuvered by Burr, whose Republican slate in New York City won, and took the desperate step of pleading with Governor John Jay to call a special session of the state legislature to nullify what appeared to be a certain Republican electoral victory in the state. Since the old Federalist-dominated assembly was still in office, Hamilton reasoned, the governor could ask the lame-duck legislature to adopt an electoral plan that would take the presidential vote away from the new Republican majority in the assembly and give it to the state's districts, where the Federalists were likely to be victorious.
To Hamilton, such an extraordinary measure was necessary to prevent a Jefferson victory, a catastrophe he compared to "the overthrow of the government...a revolution after the manner of Bonaparte." And if that specter of national disaster did not move Jay, Hamilton provided another: the governor must act "to prevent an Atheist in religion, and a Fanatic in politics, from getting possession of the helm of state." Despite Hamilton's dire warnings, Governor Jay refused the invitation to participate in the electoral scheme.
The New York City election, which appeared to clinch the presidency for Jefferson, dramatically lifted Burr's political fortunes within the Republican party. Although Burr had been on the Republican presidential ticket with Jefferson in 1796, he had never been fully accepted by Virginia's Republican establishment. Jefferson himself had met with Burr only once before the election. The 1796 election had only deepened Burr's distrust of the dominant Southern wing of the party when all but one of Virginia's electors withheld their votes from him.
With his brilliant success in New York City's election, Burr's name was again prominently mentioned for vice president on the Republican national ticket. The Republican House leader, Albert Gallatin, made inquiries about the availability of either George Clinton or Burr to run with Jefferson. Clinton declined for reasons of age and poor health.
Burr could well have afforded to turn down an offer to run with Jefferson, for he was almost assured election as New York's next governor if he chose to make the race. He let it be known, nonetheless, that he was interested in the vice-presidency, if he could be assured that there would be no recurrence of the 1796 electoral slight by Southern Republicans. He would agree to be on the ticket with Jefferson only if he received the total allegiance of his party, including the Virginia electors. After those assurances were made, Burr was officially nominated to the ticket with Jefferson at the Republican congressional caucus in Philadelphia.
Meanwhile, the Federalists were in disarray. Their hopes of retaining the presidency had plummeted with news of the Republican victory in New York City's election. Inside the party, the feud between Adams and Hamilton intensified. For more than a year, Hamilton and his followers had condemned Adams for sending a second peace delegation to Paris. With Adams's determination to support the peace initiative and his resolve to resist the High Federalists' demand for a large standing army, Hamilton had thoroughly soured on the prospect of a second Adams presidential term.
As John Marshall had reported to his brother James during the congressional session, Hamilton intended to undermine Adams's candidacy by urging Federalists to divide their support between the president and South Carolina's Charles Cotesworth Pinckney equally. Hamilton expected Federalist electors in all states but South Carolina to give Pinckney the same number of votes as Adams. In Pinckney's home state, Hamilton calculated, Pinckney would split the vote with Jefferson, not Adams. The result, Hamilton hoped, would be the presidential election of Pinckney, over both Adams and Jefferson.
It was a devious plan but one, Hamilton insisted, that was necessary to save the country from both Adams and "the fangs of Jefferson."
On May 15, Jefferson left Philadelphia for the last time. The three years he served there as vice president had been pocked with relentless political rancor, so he had few regrets about his departure. Jefferson returned to Virginia by way of the Eastern Shore, stopping briefly for a private visit with Governor Monroe in Richmond before reuniting with his daughter Maria at her home in Mont Blanco. At Monti...
Product details
- ASIN : B001PO66JY
- Publisher : Simon & Schuster (February 25, 2003)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 352 pages
- Item Weight : 11.2 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.5 x 0.9 x 8.4 inches
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read book recommendations and more.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonCustomers say
Customers find the book informative and relevant. They praise the writing quality as well-written and readable. The story is described as interesting and exciting, compared to other media.
AI-generated from the text of customer reviews
Customers find the book informative and well-researched. They say it's a good read into the workings of the government at a time that could have made or broken our republic. The resource inspires them and makes their presentation come alive. The book provides a solid description of the court's operations and decisions during his tenure, and helps them better understand their differences.
"...of Marshall's life outside the court as well as a solid description of the court's operations and decisions during his tenure as chief justice...." Read more
"This is a most relevant book...." Read more
"...His resource inspired him and made his presentation come alive...." Read more
"A superbly written and researched book, that develops in a very readable manner the politics and the law(s) that surrounded the antagonisms between..." Read more
Customers appreciate the book's writing quality. They find it well-written and readable, providing a good description of the evolution of the American legal system and explaining key decisions. The resource inspires them and makes their presentation come alive.
"...It also provides a good description of the evolution of the American legal system that influenced the development of Marshall judicial philosophy..." Read more
"...His resource inspired him and made his presentation come alive...." Read more
"A superbly written and researched book, that develops in a very readable manner the politics and the law(s) that surrounded the antagonisms between..." Read more
"Wonderful history of this time period that also does a great job of explaining some of the key decisions in an accessible way...." Read more
Customers find the book readable and well-told. It's about three founding fathers of the US.
"...I enjoyed this book, not just because of the principals, and not just because of the clear exposition of the important cases of the young country,..." Read more
"A great read about three very important founding fathers of the US." Read more
"Excellent and well-told..." Read more
Customers find the story interesting and exciting compared to movies.
"...for anyone but myself, but I find this story is more interesting and exciting than anything in the movies or on TV. I hope someone agrees." Read more
"...This is an amazing story of continual, unrequited confrontation. Make no mistake; these men did not like each other...." Read more
"...so I didn't get much out of it, but what I remember from it was fairly interesting." Read more
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
- Reviewed in the United States on February 6, 2012As I set out to review What Kind of Nation by James Simon, I skimmed through the 34 previous reviews to see what thoughts I could offer that had not already been covered. The current top review, by R. Albin, is excellent, although I give the book a higher rating. It even turned out that I had followed his/her closing advice and used Simon's book as a point of departure in my readings on John Marshall. Two other books on Marshall, which I have recently reviewed, are:
* Jean Edward Smith's John Marshall - Definer of a Nation. Readers seeking a thorough description of Marshall's life would probably be well served by reading this longer work which provides a detailed biography of Marshall's life outside the court as well as a solid description of the court's operations and decisions during his tenure as chief justice.
* The Great Chief Justice by Charles Hobson is a biography of John Marshall focused almost exclusively on Marshall's judicial philosophy and decisions. It also provides a good description of the evolution of the American legal system that influenced the development of Marshall judicial philosophy early in his career and then was shaped by the decisions of the Supreme Court under his leadership. However, it is not light reading - I found myself referring to Black's Law Dictionary every few pages.
Back to James Simon's What Kind of Nation. It's a dual biography of Marshall and Jefferson and focuses on the conflict between them regarding the relative powers of the state and federal governments. Marshall and Jefferson shared a mutual antipathy that continued until the latter's death in 1826. Their differences included strong and conflicting political beliefs, but there was a strong personal animosity on both sides as well. I find this a bit strange since Marshall appears to have been a generally affable individual with many friends and few enemies other than Jefferson. Marshall was on friendly terms with Jefferson's Republican successors, Madison and Monroe, but never with Jefferson. Following the election of 1800, the lame duck Federalist House of Representatives tried to prevent Jefferson's election to the presidency. (Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes which threw the election into the House.) Even after the arch-Federalist Alexander Hamilton appealed to Marshall to join him in an attempt to persuade the Federalist House members to support Jefferson as the better man and the obvious choice of the electorate, Marshall refused to play an active role. For his part, Jefferson did not possess the affable personality of Marshall. He could be disdainful and sarcastic at times. In a private letter to a friend in 1797, Jefferson referred to "men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England." Somehow, the letter became public, and Marshall inferred (probably correctly, although Jefferson denied it) that the reference was to his hero, Washington.
At the top of the list of reasons I gave Simon's book five stars is his description of the Marbury v Madison 1803 decision. He provides all the background in the facts of the case and the applicable laws to make the decision easy for a layman to understand.
The background for Marbury v Madison stated back in April 1793 under the presidency of George Washington. The new emissary from Republican France, Citizen Edmund Charles Genet, landed at Charleston, SC, and proceeded on his journey to the capital in Philadelphia to attempt to arouse the American people against their government and President Washington on the basis that Washington's neutrality in the conflict between Britain and France violated the American alliance with France. This undiplomatic behavior not only prompted Washington to request the French government to recall Genet but also soured our diplomatic relations with France for years to come. It also exacerbated the division of the country into the Anglophile Federalist Party which coalesced around Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and the Francophile Republican Party which formed around Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Washington attempted to remain above the conflict but consistently followed Hamilton's advice, even on matters of foreign policy which were Jefferson's responsibility. As a result, Jefferson resigned his position in January 1794 and returned to Virginia.
By 1798 the situation had deteriorated further. This was the time of the naval quasi-war with France which increased the internal turmoil in the United States over our relations with France and Britain. The Federalists controlled both the congress and the presidency under the administration of John Adams. Furthermore, all federal judges had been appointed by either Washington or Adams, so the Federalists controlled the judiciary as well. Adams was up for reelection in 1800 and the election was expected to be close. In a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to muzzle the Republican opposition, the Federalist congress passed and Adams signed a collection of acts lumped together as the Alien and Sedition Acts. The most egregious of these, the Sedition Act, made criticism of the president or congress a criminal act in direct violation of the First Amendment. The Alien Friends Act gave the president the power to banish any resident alien solely on the president's judgment, without stating any justification, and in direct violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Adams administration used the Sedition Act to prosecute newspaper editors who criticized the administration. The Federalist courts willingly supported the prosecutions. In one notorious case, Associate Justice Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court in his charge to the jury instructed them that the defendant's attempt to demonstrate the truth of his criticism was sufficient evidence that he was guilty of sedition. This is the environment that Jefferson called the "reign of witches."
Adams lost the 1800 election to Jefferson and the Federalists lost control of congress. However, as lame ducks, they took two parting shots at the incoming Republicans.
Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr had received exact the same number of electoral votes. This threw the election into the lame duck House of Representatives since the Constitution at that time awarded the presidency to the candidate with the largest number of electoral votes and the vice presidency to the runner up. In an attempt to thwart Jefferson's election, the lame duck Federalists in the House threw their votes to Burr. Interestingly and to his great credit, the arch-Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton intervened by imploring the Federalists in the House to vote for Jefferson as the better man and the clear choice of the electorate.
In parallel, the Federalist congress passed and Adams signed the Judiciary act of 1801 which created an entirely new tier of federal circuit courts and related positions. Adams immediately nominated reliable Federalists to these positions to maintain a long term lock on the judiciary. One of these positions went to William Marbury who was appointed justice of the peace in Washington, DC. Adams signed Marbury's commission and sent it to his Secretary of State, who was none other than John Marshall whom Adams had nominated to become Chief Justice. The Secretary of State at that time also had responsibility for affixing the seal to commissions and other official documents. Marshall dutifully affixed the seal on the last day of the Adams administration but in the ensuing chaos, did not deliver the commission to Marbury. Marbury subsequently filed suit in the Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the new secretary of state, James Madison, to deliver his commission.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 empowered the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus. However, Article 3 of the Constitution gave the Court original jurisdiction (as opposed to appellate jurisdiction) over only a limited class of cases (involving Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Admiralty, and cases where a State was a party). Marbury's case was none of these. At this point, Marshall could have dismissed the case on the grounds that the Supreme Court did not have original jurisdiction. In the current era, he might have recused himself on the grounds that he had been directly involved in the case (and his brother James Marshall was Adams' personal secretary who delivered the commission). He did neither. In an elegantly reasoned and unanimous opinion, he found that:
1. The decisions and acts of executive branch were composed of two types: Those that involved political judgment and those that were administrative functions in accordance with laws. The separation of powers prohibited the judiciary from enquiring into the first category, creating an area of executive privilege. However, executive privilege did not extend to purely administrative acts such as the delivery of an already signed and sealed commission to a justice of the peace.
2. Marbury was indeed entitled to his commission and that the Jefferson administration had a duty to deliver it.
3. A writ of mandamus was the appropriate legal vehicle for compelling the Secretary of State to deliver the commission. The Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the Court to issue such writs.
4. However, because Constitution did not give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in Marbury's case, the Court was unable to issue a writ of mandamus in this case.
5. Finally, because the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article 3 of the Constitution, the relevant section of that Act was unconstitutional and void.
With this opinion, Marshall had established the Court as the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution. Furthermore, he had defined the bounds of executive privilege and issued a rebuke to the Jefferson administration for not performing its duty. All of the subsequent cases involving judicial review of federal and state laws depend on Marbury.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I find this story is more interesting and exciting than anything in the movies or on TV. I hope someone agrees.
- Reviewed in the United States on August 31, 2005This is a most relevant book. It is the story of two cousins who consistently and relentlessly clashed over just what kind of nation the United States would become.
Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall were political polar opposites. Jefferson, the Republican, was a fervent believer in State's rights. He held forth strongly that unguarded concentrations of power within the Federal Government would ultimately lead to the destruction of the United States. He was right.
John Marshall's views were just the opposite. Marshall subscribed to a strong central government. He passionately believed that left to themselves, each State's regional self interest would lead to the destruction of the United States. He was also right.
Therein lays the conundrum that faced the early republic and led to the formation of the first political parties. Both sides were right and both sides were wrong. Both men lived to see their fears of unchecked concentrations of power in the Federal Government or in the States lead to exactly the assaults on liberty that each feared. But in a larger sense both men, probably without realizing it, truly lived the concept of checks and balances both subscribed to and cherished within the Constitution.
This is an amazing story of continual, unrequited confrontation. Make no mistake; these men did not like each other. Each defined the other as what was wrong with the early republic. Ultimately, John Marshall prevails in his bid to establish the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the Constitution and the authoritative voice for the constitutional supremacy of the federal government over the states. More than 150 years after Jefferson's and Marshall's deaths, their words and achievements still reverberate in today's constitutional debate and political party battles. You will be fascinated by this work. Theirs was a confrontation that continues to define just what kind of nation the United States should be.
- Reviewed in the United States on May 12, 2015Judge Quentin L. Kopp used this text as a resource for Independence Sunday in Pacifica (San Francisco Bay Area), California in 2014. His presentation on American Constitutional Law within the context of the dialogue between Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall is one of the best I have heard over a period of sixty years. His resource inspired him and made his presentation come alive. The next Independence Sunday will be held at Holy Cross Lutheran Church, 1165 Seville Drive, Pacifica, CA, on Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. Judge Kopp will present "Lincoln's Constitution" upon the 150th Anniversary of the end of the Civil War and the presentation of the Second Inauguaral Address of Lincoln.
- Reviewed in the United States on July 16, 2016A superbly written and researched book, that develops in a very readable manner the politics and the law(s) that surrounded the antagonisms between John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson. My only regret is that it is so short. This was one of those books that I hated to see come to an end. The discussion in chapter 8 of the context and reasoning of the seminal decision in Marbury vs. Madison is perhaps the best and clearest I have ever seen.
- Reviewed in the United States on March 12, 2013Too many historians are afraid to tell all the story of Jefferson. James Simon gives the reader a more clear picture of Jefferson and the person he was and at the same time gives us more information about John Marshall and his influence on the Supreme Court.
Top reviews from other countries
David BeesonReviewed in the United Kingdom on May 28, 20135.0 out of 5 stars A conflict between key figures and how it moulded the US
Like a paradox? How about the fascination of the boring?
Who really cares whether it's an offence to sell a Washington DC lottery ticket in Virginia or not? And when I add that the alleged offence, if it was an offence at all, took place in 1820, doesn't the whole thing become so dull it becomes hard to read any further?
And yet the very nature of the United States as a country was moulded by a series of judgements, including that in the case of the Cohen brothers, who sold the ticket, and the State of Virginia, which said they shouldn't. It was one of a series cases, which mostly turned on questions in themselves insignificant, which allowed the Supreme Court of the United States to shape the nation at a time when there were still decisions to be made about the form it should take.
Where did those cases lead the United States? They moved the emphasis decisively towards the word `united' and away from `states'. In decision after decision, the court asserted the supremacy of federal government, federal laws and federal treaties over the rights of individual States. In Cohens v. Virginia, for example, the Supreme Court actually found for the State, but only on the grounds that the lottery instituted by Congress for DC was local in nature and therefore Virginia was entitled to ban the sale of its tickets; had Congress made the lottery national, Virginia would have had no authority to act against the sale.
In other words, the Supreme Court found for Virginia, but in a judgement which once more asserted the supremacy of federal authority.
The driving force behind these judgements was the Chief Justice, John Marshall. He had previously been Secretary of State under John Adams, the second President and the man whose administration marked the last gasp of power for the Federalist Party over Congress and the Presidency. As one of his final acts as President, Adams nominated Marshall Chief Justice, so that he received his appointment just as Thomas Jefferson took office as third President.
Jefferson was Adams's nemesis (even though they had been friends and would be again later, when both had left politics). Jefferson was a staunch advocate of States' rights. The string of decisions Marshall inspired flew in the face of much of what Jefferson held dearest in politics.
The President was in office for just two terms. The Chief Justice served 34 years. His influence on these formative years of the nation lasted far longer and arguably therefore played a greater role in determining what kind of country it became: one in which power is ultimately federal with States exercising authority only over what is strictly local. It's as if it was Adams who had the last laugh, through the influence exerted by John Marshall's long tenure.
So that trivial question of where a lottery ticket could our could not be sold led to a momentous decision, as did many more that came before the Marshall court. Making apparently dull triviality powerfully significant - and indeed grippingly interesting to the reader of James Simon's book, What Kind of Nation.
A lawyer first and historian second, Simon is superbly qualified to write this account of the conflicts that decided what kind of nation would emerge from, as his subtitle puts it, `the epic struggle to create a United States' between Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall.
An outstanding, well-paced and entertaining description of the process which set the United States on the course to becoming the kind of nation it is today.
