Reviews for Reckoning with Slavery: Critical Essays in the Quantitative History of American Negro Slaver...

The average rating for Reckoning with Slavery: Critical Essays in the Quantitative History of American Negro Slaver... based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2010-09-30 00:00:00 Harold Benigno I read this mainly because I thought it would give me a series of mini-bios of the 112 Supreme Court justices in American history, along with a decent look at how confirmation battles have changed over the years. This is admittedly a slightly out of date version of the book, so it only takes the reader to Sandra Day O'Connor in 1982, but of course the more recent appointment scuffles (Robert Bork to Clarence Thomas to Harriet Myers) are widely known. One immediate takeaway is that almost 1/5 of all nominated justices (today 29 total) are not confirmed by the Senate, and the rate of rejections was much higher in the 19th century (about 1/3). President John Tyler had all four of his nominations rejected or withdrawn, with some of them rejected twice or three times. Another, related issue is how many potential nominees turn down the honor from the President, often due to the desire to occupy the President's position themselves, from such luminaries as John Quincy Adams to James Buchanan to Roscoe Conkling (who was one of a number of men who refused the position AFTER being approved by the Senate). Another is that a few states clearly dominate the appointments, though overall they are fairly evenly spread out, with New York having 15 (as of the date of this book, now it's higher), Ohio 9, Massachusetts 8 and Virginia 7. Yet such facts also demonstrate some of the problem with the book. Besides being out of the date, the basic facts don't seem to tell one much that one didn't know, or couldn't easily divine elsewhere, and the author's attempts to find generalizations about appointments only elicit truisms about the Court (e.g., that in earlier years Presidents tended to focus on replacing justices with ones from the same state or circuit, while today geography is much less important). The heart of the book is the short descriptions of every justice appointment, and though they can easily begin to blur together, there are gems here. Joseph Story, one of the greatest Supreme Court justices, was perhaps appointed by Madison because he was close with Story's uncle, even though the thirty-two year old Story had ruled against the recent Embargo act and Madison's hero Jefferson denounced Story as a "pseudo-Republican" and "independent political schemer." There was John McLean, appointed by Jackson to the court to remove a political rival, with a promise that he would eschew any political ambitions, but who then was a presidential candidate four times (in 1832 as an Anti-Mason, then Independent in 1836, then as both Whig and Free-Soiler in 1844, and a Republican in 1856). Similarly, Chief Justice Samuel Chase was appointed by Lincoln with an understanding that he would limit his politics, but Chase would seek the Presidential nomination of both political parties in 1868. (As with those men who turned down presidential appointments, the lure of the becoming the potential appointer was often a powerful influence on judges). There were other types of ambition influencing the appointments too. There was Stephen Field, the famous free-market jurist, who in 1863 was the first official nomination outside of a president's political party, but as the first California nominee would placate the West. Another across-the aisle appointee was Taft's naming of the Democratic Catholic Edward Douglass White as Chief Justice. Taft knew that White, already an associate justice, was a great administrator, but he also knew putting the 66 and overweight White in that position increased the chance that Taft himself would soon occupy it (he said "There is nothing I would have loved more than being Chief Justice of the United States...It seems strange that the one place in the government which I would have liked to fill myself I am forced to give to another"). In ten years, Taft got his wish under President Harding, and as Chief Justice he then occupied almost complete control over the bench during the years of Republican ascendency (Harding's attorney general said they would nominate no one without the Chief's consent). So as one can see even these stories, though often fascinating, can tend to blend together. There are probably better ways to learn about all our Supreme Court Justices and the Presidents who made them.

Review # 2 was written on 2017-09-11 00:00:00 Donovan Mike Although more academic in nature than popular, a very good look at how U.S. President have selected and worked with U.S. Supreme Court justices.