Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:15:03.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dueling Histories: Charles Fairman and William Crosskey Reconstruct “Original Understanding”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Pamela Brandwein
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Historiography and epistemology are two subjects not often brought together in sociolegal studies. This article takes reconstructions of legal history as a subject of sociological investigation. The institutional “acceptability” of any historical representation is a complex social achievement since there are no objective criteria for verifying historical accounts. I juxtapose two competing reconstructions of Fourteenth Amendment history, by legal scholars Charles Fairman and William Crosskey, and examine how both reconstructions took place with reference to preexisting interpretive frameworks. I also examine the social and institutional settings in which these histories interacted and competed for credibility. The Fairman/Crosskey dispute served to socialize future participants in Fourteenth Amendment debate. With the Fairman/Crosskey exchanges, battle lines were drawn and topics of debate were established.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , 1996 , pp. 289 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

I am especially grateful to Arthur Stinchcombe for his detailed comments on several earlier drafts. I would also like to thank anonymous reviewer #2 for a close reading and a set of very helpful questions and suggestions. Kim Scheppele, Robert L. Nelson, Arthur McEvoy, and two other anonymous reviewers offered comments and advice which have contributed to the development of this essay as well. I also owe special thanks to Lisa Frohmann for a conversation that produced the idea for this article. Jacqueline Battalora has provided careful editorial assistance and has helped significantly to sharpen the ideas presented here. Very generous support for this research was provided by a Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship from the American Bar Foundation.

References

References

Ball, Milner (1989) “Stories of Origin and Constitutional Possibilities,” 87 Michigan Law Rev. 2280.Google Scholar
Bartlett, Katharine (1990) “Feminist Legal Methods,” 103 Harvard Law Rev. 829.Google Scholar
Bell, Derrick (1989) And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Berger, Peter, & Luckmann, Thomas (1967) The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Berger, Raoul (1977) Government by Judiciary. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Bestor, Arthur (1964) “The American Civil War as a Constitutional Crisis,” 69 American Historical Rev. 327.Google Scholar
Bickel, Alexander (1955) “The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decisions,” 69 Harvard Law Rev. 1.Google Scholar
Bickel, Alexander (1962) The Least Dangerous Branch. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert (1990) The Tempting of America. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brant, Irving (1954) “Mr. Crosskey and Mr. Madison,” 54 Columbia Law Rev. 443.Google Scholar
Brest, Paul (1980) “The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding,” 60 Boston Univ. Law Rev. 204.Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth (1969) A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cover, Robert (1983) “Foreword: Nomos and Narrative,” 97 Harvard Law Rev. 4.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé (1989) “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex,” 1989 Univ. of Chicago Legal Forum 139.Google Scholar
Crosskey, William W. (1953) Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Crosskey, William W. (1954) “Charles Fairman, 'Legislative History' and the Constitutional Limitations on State Authority,” 22 Univ. of Chicago Law Rev. 1.Google Scholar
Curtis, Michael Kent (1986) No State Shall Abridge. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1935) Black Reconstruction in America, 1860–1880. New York: Atheneum 1935.Google Scholar
Dunning, William E. (1907) Reconstruction: Political and Economic, 1865–1877. New York: Harper & Bros.Google Scholar
Fairman, Charles (1949) “Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?” 2 Stanford Law Rev. 5.Google Scholar
Fairman, Charles (1954) “A Reply to Professor Crosskey,” 22 Univ. of Chicago Law Rev. 144.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley (1980) Is There a Text in This Class? Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Fleming, Walter L. (1919) The Sequel of Appomattox. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Foner, Eric (1988) Reconstruction: Americas Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy (1995) “Pragmatism, Feminism and the Linguistic Turn,” in Nicholson, L., ed., Feminist Contentions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Friedlander, Saul, ed. (1992) Probing the Limits of Representation. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford (1973) “The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man,” in C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goebel, Julius (1954) “Ex Parte Clio,” 54 Columbia Law Rev. 450.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1974) Frame Analysis New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Graham, Howard Jay (1968) Everyman's Constitution: Historical Essays on the Fourteenth Amendment. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Gusfield, Joseph, ed. (1989) On Symbols and Society. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna (1989) Primate Visions: Gender, Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harris, Angela P. (1990) “Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory,” 42 Stanford Law Rev. 581.Google Scholar
Hart, Henry M. (1954) Book Review, “Politics and the Constitution,” 67 Harvard Law Rev. 1439.Google Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell (1920) “The Path of the Law,” address delivered at Boston Univ. School of Law, 8 Jan. 1897, Collected Legal Papers. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Horwitz, Morton J. (1993) “Foreword: The Constitution of Change: Legal Fundamentality without Fundamentalism,” 107 Harvard Law Rev. 30.Google Scholar
Hunt, Alan (1993) Explorations in Law and Society: Towards a Constitutive Theory of Law. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hyman, Harold M. (1973) A More Perfect Union: The Impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction on the Constitution. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Jay, Martin (1992) “Of Plots, Witnesses and Judgments,” in Friedlander 1992.Google Scholar
Kaczorowski, Robert (1985) The Politics of Judicial Interpretation. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Press.Google Scholar
Kammen, Michael (1986) A Machine That Would Go of Itself : The Constitution in American Culture. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Duncan (1986) “Freedom and Constraint in Adjudication: A Critical Phenomenology,” 36 J. of Legal Education 518.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno (1987) Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno, & Woolgar, Steve (1979) Laboratory Life. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Charles R. III (1993) “If He Hollers Let Him Go,” in Matsuda et al. 1993.Google Scholar
Levinson, Sanford (1988) Constitutional Faith. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Sanford, & Mailloux, Steven, eds. (1988) Law and Literature. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Leonard (1972) “The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights,” in L. Levy, Seasoned Judgments. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald A. (1981) Statistics in Britain, 1865–1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine A. (1987) Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine A. (1989) Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Mahoney, Martha R. (1993) “Whiteness and Women, in Practice and Theory,” 5 Yale J. of Law & Feminism 217.Google Scholar
Maltz, Earl M. (1984) “The Fourteenth Amendment as Political Compromise,” 45 Ohio State Law J. 933.Google Scholar
Matsuda, Mari J. (1993) “Public Response to Racist Speech,” in Matsuda et al. 1993.Google Scholar
Matsuda, Mari J., Lawrence, Charles R. III, Delgado, Richard, & Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams (1993) Words That Wound. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Charles A. (1969) The Supreme Court and the Uses of History. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Morrison, Stanley (1949) “Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?” 2 Stanford Law Rev. 137.Google Scholar
Nelson, William E. (1988) The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle to Judicial Doctrine. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Perry, Michael (1981) “Interpretivism, Freedom of Expression and Equal Protection,” 42 Ohio State Law J. 261.Google Scholar
Richards, David A.J. (1993) Conscience and the Constitution: History, Theory and Law of the Reconstruction Amendments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheppele, Kim Lane (1989) “Foreword: Telling Stories,” 87 Michigan Law Rev. 2073.Google Scholar
Scheppele, Kim Lane (1988) Legal Secrets: Equality and Efficiency in the Common Law. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schudson, Michael (1989) “How Culture Works: Perspectives from Media Studies on the Efficacy of Symbols,” 18 Theory & Society 153.Google Scholar
Schultz, Vicki (1991) “Telling Stories about Women and Work,” 103 Harvard Law Rev. 1750.Google Scholar
Sewell, William H. Jr. (1992) “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency and Transformation,” 98 American J. of Sociology 1.Google Scholar
Soifer, Aviam (1979) “Protecting Civil Rights: A Critique of Raoul Berger's History,” 54 New York Univ. Law Rev. 651.Google Scholar
Star, Susan Leigh (1988) Introduction: “The Sociology of Science and Technology” (Special Issue), 35 Social Problems 3.Google Scholar
Star, Susan Leigh (1989) Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (1987) “Lochner's Legacy,” 87 Columbia Law Rev. 873.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (1993) “On Analogical Reasoning,” 106 Harvard Law Rev. 741.Google Scholar
Swidler, Ann (1986) “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies,” 51 American Sociological Rev. 273.Google Scholar
tenBroeck, Jacobus (1951) The Antislavery Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushnet, Mark V. (1983) “Following the Rules Laid Down,” 96 Harvard Law Rev. 781.Google Scholar
White, James Boyd (1990) Justice as Translation. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wiecek, William (1977) The Sources of Antislavery Constitutionalism in America, 1760–1848. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Wiecek, William (1988) Liberty under Law. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Patricia J. (1988) “On Being the Object of Property,” 14 Signs 000.Google Scholar
Williams, Patricia J. (1991) The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Woolgar, Steve (1988) Science: The Very Idea. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar

Cases

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (2 Pet.) 243 (1833).Google Scholar
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S.3, 26 (1883).Google Scholar
Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. Cir. Ct. 371, Fed. Case No. 3230 (1823).Google Scholar
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).Google Scholar
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).Google Scholar
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 (1884).Google Scholar
In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890).Google Scholar
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).Google Scholar
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 605 (1900).Google Scholar
Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).Google Scholar
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 552 (1896).Google Scholar
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).Google Scholar
Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945).Google Scholar
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873).Google Scholar
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908).Google Scholar
United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1942).Google Scholar
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).Google Scholar
United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1882).Google Scholar