Bill Archer
16 Jul 2006, 08:51 PM
Historians are taking another look, and pointing out that a lot of what you think you "know" about his administration ain't necessarily so.
http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/003697.shtml
yossarian
17 Jul 2006, 09:35 PM
Historians are taking another look, and pointing out that a lot of what you think you "know" about his administration ain't necessarily so.
http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/003697.shtml
Interesting article. I haven't studied the issue in detail enough to quibble with it.....although I don't know that I agree with his (partial) explanation as to why Cruikshank and Reconstruction legal history aren't studied more. I'd be curious to learn the names of the liberals who are so "attach[ed] to court power and don't want to remember the shame that those same courts spent the 19th and early 20th century abetting" slavery, Klan violence, and then corporate power. I don't suppose that he's including legal scholars, as the vast majority of liberal legal historians have no problem pointing out the past "sins" of the Court......especially in the context of Reconstruction and later Lochner era jurisprudence.
All that aside, again, it was an interesting read.