Geoffrey Marshall, O. Hood Phillips, S. A. Smith, D. C. M. Yardley, J. F. Garner, G. D. Nokes, H. A. Hammelmann, J. D. McClean, A. N. Allott, Paul Jackson, L. C. Greek, F. A. Mann (+12 others)
1965 Modern law review  
This book, rehearsing conflicts between federal and state power in the first half-century of our constitutional history, is timely. For the issue of civil rights, especially of Negroes, takes us back to the need for what Professor Konefsky phrases as "authority in the central government to curb the parochial and disruptive actions of the states and to compel them to accept measures required for the good of the nation as a whole." Thus the national insistence of Marshall and Hamilton, relived in
more » ... these pages, applies precisely to reports in today's newspaper. Back in 1832, when Nullification was the threat, Marshall wrote from Richmond to Joseph Story of his fears for the Constitution: "I had supposed that north of the Potomac a firm and solid government competent to the security of rational liberty might be preserved. Even that now seems doubtful. The case of the South seems to me to be desperate. Our opinions are incompatible with a united government even among ourselves."' Hamilton at times was driven closer to despair. Fortunately, these prime protagonists of national supremacy in matters concerning the integrity of the country were also prophets. Current disquiets are less disturbing because of precedents which Hamilton and Marshall established. Cultural differences, while they now appear uppermost, were not lacking in the antagonisms of their era. Cleavage of social custom must yield to the harmonizing mandate of the fundamental law, just as contests more explicitly political and economic were composed. Birchers' billboards in the Southwest crying "Impeach Earl Warren" were anticipated in President Jefferson's mutterings against John Marshall. Federal officers in western Pennsylvania fared worse, at the hands of Whiskey Boys, than did those dispatched to execute court orders in Oxford, Mississippi 175 years later. By coupling the services of Hamilton and Marshall to the Constitution, the author presents not only a cordial partnership of statesmen,
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1965.tb01066.x fatcat:y6qcrqihdzbpteboj2sl6zshou