Jump to content

Talk:John Marshall/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled comments

I removed the last line of the first paragraph in the opening. Worcester v. Georgia did not rule that the Cherokee had to leave their land. As futile as the decision may have been, the ruling cemented Federal control over Indian affairs and barred States from interfering with Tribal sovereignty. I would like to add a section, possibly in the "Chief Justice" section about the three rulings Justice Marshall decised regarding Indian Affairs. Natas333x2 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything that I contribute to Wikipedia that's right? -- Zoe

Please don't take offense Zoe - we all edit articles and fix each other's mistakes. The trouble was that the image is more than 206 px wide. --mav
As a pure technical note, I see no reason (even from a performance or load point of view) for including an explicit width of a diversion. It does not help at the Wikipedia end, nor at the client (which needs to find the diversion height anyway). So I would recommend simply leaving out the explicit width. -- Egil 06:20 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
Unfortunately some pre Mac OS X-based browsers do not wrap text below images when an explicit width isn't added (resulting in a justified image with a column of white space below it the same width as the image. That said, I still don't add the specification myself becasue I'm lazy and think those Mac people should upgrade to Mac OS X or buy a PC with Linux on it. ;) --mav
Or just switch to Mozilla? There is a Mozilla version for just about everything. Tannin
Omniweb under Mac OS X does the same thing [1], which is why I go around changing them when I see them (I have Photoshop open all the time, so it's easy for me to do). (I'm not switching to Mozilla, either, if it can't handle nested tables; see Talk:Yttrium. ;-) Hephaestos
There is nothing wrong with Moz - the nested table doesn't look right because an image should be in the middle of it to prop-up the different parts. See Lithium for an example of one of these nested tables with an image in it. --mav

I note this page is linked to Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks: City of New York where a firefighter with this name was killed. He should be mentioned.

I would do it myself but am too depressed from reading the names of the dead. Paul, in Saudi

Someone (preferably someone who nows mroe than I do) should also deal with the British mariner John Marshall, whom the Marshall Islands are named for... that article links here, confusingly. -FZ 13:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Several quasi-humorous remarks are inserted in this article; maybe someone adept in Wikipedia can revert those changes? 213.10.183.26 20:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The Early life section is a bit lacking. We go from birth in 1755 to 1782. This section could be expanded to include military service in the Revolutionary War and educational background. The former is relevant to his admiration of Geo. Washington and the Federalist party, the latter because he was a lawyer. Also some information about his wife and children, (if any), would be nice. --jbarntt 14:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarntt (talk • contribs)

Intermarried

John Marshall's tombstone reads "Intermarried with Mary Willis Ambler ". Does anyone know how "intermarried" is different from "married"?Vincent 01:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


No, but all i know is that they are a little different if you have any more questions ask me at www.bubn8tor@yahoo.com ok and if you wat to know look on they internet dictionary.♣

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

John Marshall was responsible for Johnson v. Mcintosh, a ruling which profoundly altered US relations with the Native Americans under the principles of the "Discovery Doctrine" and a ruling which has set the precedent for government's relationships with indigenous peoples the world over. The result of Johnson v. Mcintosh is still set in US law today. I'm suprised there is no mention of this, does anyone know why? I will add something myself if I get the time 81.86.44.208 14:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 14:02, 5th January 2007 (GMT)

It seems like there is an error in the dates for Marshall's time as Secretary of State. Did it end on March 4, 1801 as the article asserts? If so, then he was Secretary of State and Chief Justice simultaneously.

I am distantly related to John Marshall, an interesting point is that he is related, quiet directly, to James Marshall. James Marshall discovered gold at "Suter's Mill" which led to the 1849 gold rush in California. --thebigjimmer

There is no mistake. He was indeed both SecState and Chief for that month. The notion that the three branches must be separate had not yet been invented; contrary to popular belief it is not required by the constitution. -- Zsero (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Change Christmas Day to December 25th please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.211.208 (talk) 20:24, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Political Philosophy

Wouldn't it be a good idea to include his actual political philosophy as a seperate section (if it's there) or at all? [[Kidalana 23:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Timmy, Lassie, and Frank Heugnonaut

Why didn't anyone notice that they were screwing around with the name over the picture?Ericl 16:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

libby repasky is the coolest person ever

courtney carey is sweet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.40.23 (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Memorials

Shouldn't Marshalll University be added to the section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acm acm (talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A little fun fact worth mentioning: the Liberty Bell received its crack during John Marshall's funeral. His casket had knocked into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.155.64 (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Just fyi, in case anyone is wondering what is up with the weird page moves/deletions, because of redirects and generally not paying attention, I mistakenly moved the disambiguation page John Marshall (disambiguation) to here... and then realized that I had accidentially deleted the article. I believe it's all back to normal now, but, y'know, sorry for the idiocy. :) -- Natalya 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Something is still wrong with it, and I unfortunately have no idea how to fix it. Anyone?Enslin (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Appointment

I wonder if there should be a sub-section on the circumstances surrounding Marshall's appointment as Chief Justice. I attempted to fit a synopsis into the opening paragraph of the Marshall Court section, but it feels like it's overcrowded at present. Recognizance (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification Needed

The statement "In particular, he repeatedly confirmed the supremacy of federal law over state law and supported an expansive reading of the enumerated powers." is not entirely true; John Marshall strove for the correct placement of powers; If any expansive powers were apparent, they would have been within the delegated powers, not arrogating new powers.

During the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 statements by John Marshall show his view of state and federal powers to be separate with states reserving all powers not delegated to the federal government:

"Mr. JOHN MARSHALL asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken. The state governments "DID NOT derive their powers from the general government"; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to "act according to the powers given it". Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.

For "Continental" purposes Congress may call forth the militia, as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by the people is "NOT taken away"; for the Constitution does NOT say so. In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it "also". The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are NO negative words here. It rests, therefore, with the STATES. To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the "same manner" as they could have done BEFORE its adoption. Gentlemen have said that the states cannot defend themselves without an application to Congress, because Congress can interpose!

Does not every man feel a refutation of the argument in his own breast?

I will show {420} that there could not be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power.

All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article.

This power is NOT included in the restrictions in that section. But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

When invaded, they "CAN" engage in war, as also when in "imminent danger". This clearly proves that the STATES can use the militia when they find it necessary."

"............But the worthy member fears, that in one part of the Union they will be regulated and disciplined, and in another neglected. This danger is enhanced by leaving this power to each state; for some states may attend to their militia, and others may neglect them. If Congress neglect our militia, "we can arm them ourselves".

CANNOT Virginia "import arms?<> <>Cannot she put them into the hands of "HER" militia-men?

He then concluded by observing, that the power of governing the militia was not vested in the states by implication, because, being "possessed of it" <> "antecedent to the adoption of the government, and "not being divested of it" by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as "fully possessed of it as ever they had been.<> And it could not be said that the states derived any powers from that system, "but retained them," "though not acknowledged in any part of it".

Source: http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm

User: RichardTaylorAPP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.57 (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:John Marshall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Notified: User:Jengod, User:7&6=thirteen, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Virginia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article as part of GA Sweeps. This article is a very enjoyable read for those who may chance upon the article, but needs much work to bring it in line with the current standards of WP:WIAGA. I am about to outline a partial list of issues that need to be addressed. After I post this listing, I will give concerned and interested editors a week before I reevaluate the article's quality rating. I will be following along with the progress of the article and may make additional comments as it is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Delisted--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The infobox is incomplete in the U.S. rep section with no preceded by or succeded by information.
  • The images need WP:ALT text according to the alt text checker
  • The article has three deadlinks according to the link checker
  • The article has three dablinks according to the dablinks checker
  • The article has several entire paragraphs without inline citations. If the article is properly arranged with paragraphs covering distinct topics, then this means there are encyclopedic topics without any citations.
  • I am especially disappointed in the family section. It is both devoid of citation and explanation of the relationships. I think it should be converted from bulletpoints to text. You did not explain whether he had siblings so it is nearly impossible to understand what types of brother in law and nephew relationships we are talking about. I would really like to know the distant relationship with Jefferson, but will not hold that against the article. Maybe the family section and early years could be merged to a family and early years section. Then if he had siblings it would be explained proximally to all these other relationships.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Please see that all images adhere to WP:CAPTION#Wording as it relates to the use of the period. Also see that all images have captions including the infobox if possible. Finally, what does the caption "Marshall Memorial by WW Story" mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
In the article, right next to the picture it mentions that the sculptor was William Wetmore Story. However I added that to the caption, making it clearer. How is that? Carptrash (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The sculpture was created in the 1880s, well before the 1923 (?) cut off date, making it fair game, not fair use. Carptrash (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
If the sculpture is that old, then there is no problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh good. Story died in 1895, so It's not likely that the work is dated much after that. Carptrash (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have more comments coming and will review the images (which likely pass due to the age of the subject). I will review this article's status in a week. Feel free to ping me if there are any questions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked the article's substance and the citations. Hope that helps. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Stan
The article is improved, but the concerns above still remain.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
These have been fixed. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Stan
There is one redirect on John Jay at the Oyez project, and I am having trouble finding the original article. Anybody can help, please? 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Stan
dablink fixed. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Stan

Joseph Story book

This appears three times. Under Bibliograpy 

* Story, Joseph, LIFE, CHARACTER, AND SERVICES OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, A Discourse pronounced on the 16th of October, 1835, at the request of the Suffolk Bar. in Story's Miscellaneous Writings (1852 edition)

Under Primary sources 

* Story, Joseph, ed., The Writings of John Marshall, late Chief Justice of the United States, upon the Federal Constitution, Boston, 1839 at Google books.
* Ibid. The Writings of John Marshall (1891, Washington DC)

All have links. I don't think we need this level of redundancy. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Stan

Structural problem

The section titled "Chief Justice" comes after the section titled "The Marshall Court (1801 to 1835)". There is a huge amount of material in the section titled "Chief Justice" that seems redundant, and even some of the subsection headings in the "Chief Justice" section are identical to subsection headings in the "The Marshall Court (1801 to 1835)" section.

I'll try to fix this when I have time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Very strange diff

Consider this diff from November 30, 2010. It shows that the unedited version contains the words "first important case". But, if you click on that version, those words do not appear. Very weird.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

the problem was duplication and I tried just now to clean that up. I made no substantive changes, just rearranged the text. Rjensen (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Is it worth trying to figure out what caused this? It could have been an editing error, but it also could have been a computer malfunction of some kind. As I mentioned, the diff from November 30 is very weird.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Overhauled

Over the past few days, I've overhauled the article. It could still use some work, but I'm all done for now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about quote

This article says:


I can't find this quote on the internet. Does anyone have a precise citation for it? Also, if context is available, I'd like to know where or when it was said, and/or what the discussion was about. Is Marshall saying that he makes up the law as he goes along, or instead saying that he puts more value on statutes and the text of the Constitution than on prior legal decisions?

Moreover, if he was telling Story to "find" a precedent, then that suggests Story didn't know the precedent either, so it hardly supports the notion that Marshall's legal knowledge was shallow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"precedent" should be plural. There are lots of cites. It's used here to show that Marshall was not much of a scholar when it came to digging up the precedents and wanted Story to do that chore. Rjensen (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

<Undent> Thanks for the link. However, it still seems problematic for the reasons I explained. Also, it's probably a false quote. See Powell, HJ.  "Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution: A Belated Review", Yale Law Journal (1985):

In the well-known, although probably apocryphal, account of Marshall stating a holding and then saying, "Now Story, that is the law; you find the precedents...."

Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

did Marshall really say that--nobody knows for sure. Numerous scholars use the tale to illustrate the well-known different styles of the two; Marshall ignored the tedious details of looking up the back cases, while Story was very good at that. Today they have clerks who do that. But I did find a cite to a primary source from a lawyer who knew Marshall personally who said in 1870 that indeed that is what Marshall said. see quote at end of page and note how the author ties it to Marshall's non-use of citations. Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll go look at the 1870 source in a minute. The problem is that the quote suggests much more than that he didn't like detailed research: it suggests that he was a results-oriented activist judge who made decisions first and justified them later. Such an extraordinary suggestion requires extraordinary sourcing. It would not be as much of a problem if we use only the latter part of the quote, but I'd prefer to use none if it. Here's another source that calls it a mere "rumor": Hudson, David. "The Marshall Court (1801-35)", The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book (2008). Hudson writes, "It is rumored that Chief Justice Marshall once said to Story upon handing over an opinion: 'This is the law; now you find the precedents.'"Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
[outdent] was Marshall an "activist" judge (as used in 2011 talk)--well yes I think so but that's not the issue here. It was he could not remember where he read something (or exactly what the Court said in an earlier decision) so he asked Story to do the checking to get the exact source. As Parsons noted in 1870, and many others since, Marshall decisions have few citations to legal precedents. (of course there were not nearly so many precedents in those days--there were only a handful of important Supreme Court decisions before Marshall took over in 1801.Rjensen (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Can we just put it in our words, instead of using the quote in question? You could put the quote in question into a footnote if you want, along with sources that call it a rumor, or probably apocryphal, and you could put the 1870 source into the footnote as well. Yes, Marshall didn't cite prior cases much, yes that is partly because he was largely writing on a blank slate, and yes it might be partly because he didn't like the chore----we can say all that without using a sketchy quote, and note that not even Professor Parsons says who told him.
We also need to decide what version of the quote to use, if we use it. Parsons uses the word "authorities" instead of "precedents". Does that mean Marshall was ignorant not only of case law when he made his decisions, but also ignorant of statute law? Leave it to some idiot Harvard Professor to screw up things. :-).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
we found the missing source--a law journal article by a law professor who knew Marshall is a RS, so we should use it. None of the historians saw the Parsons quote (or they would have cited it) --you need google books which only recently came on line. So we can use the Parsons quote and cite it, and mention that it is no longer a matter of legend.Rjensen (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a good find, and your googling skills are impressive. But questions remain. Would we use Parson's version of the quote, or someone else's? For example, Parsons does not use the word "precedents". Also, while your find is impressive, if you put the exact Parsons quote back into Google, you'll find it in at least one other source, by Proctor.
Additionally, there is the question of why we should use the Parsons quote. Parsons said a lot of stuff about Marshall, for example that he habitually walked around with an umbrella on sunny days. Why hone in on that one quote, which is ambiguous and misleading? It's unclear if Parsons was referring to statutory "authorities" or precedential "authorities" or both. Also, the quote suggests that Marshall was results-oriented, reaching decisions before he considered what legislators or judges have said; that's suggested by the Parsons quote, even though Parsons may have merely meant that Marshall didn't like doing the tedious cite-checking that law clerks do today, or that many of Marshall's opinions covered new ground that had not been covered by previous judicial opinions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

<Undent>Note that Professor Parsons was a Harvard law professor just like Story, so he had some reason to make Story look good. Also, this was merely something Parsons allegedly said in class, recorded in a student's notes:

So I think we would have to describe the sketchy history of the quote. It does seem like the Albany Law Journal was not attesting to the accuracy of the quote. Maybe the book by Proctor does (it won't load on my iPhone)..Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

the Parsons quote is a reliable source and should be used. The other sources for the quote are citing Corwin but his usage lacks legitimacy -- the 90 years (between Marshall's death and Corwin's book) is too long for Corwin to have a good oral source who heard it from a principal. With Parsons, however, we have an explicit link of someone who says he knew, talked to, and was very interested in Marshall, and delivered a full-scale lecture on the subject at Harvard Law school. Parsons was a famous professor, and his students were trained to take very good notes indeed; that is how you learned law in the days before the Socratic dialogue of the casebook method. The quality of the Parsons lecture indicates that Parsons spent a good deal of attention on it, and his handling of the quotation is done in a serious manner. There is no reason whatever to believe that he invented or embellished or distorted it -- his job as a professor was to get things right, and his textbooks went through many editions because they got legal points just right. Furthermore, all the 20th-century historians who have used a version of the quotation to illustrate the unwillingness of Justice Marshall to do heavy-duty research or even to put in citations. That is why we use the quote in this article. --- Thanks for the Proctor cite--it's dated 1882 (12 years after Parsons), which makes it a copy of Parsons not the other way around. (L.B Proctor, Lawyer and client, Trials and triumphs of the bar published: New York : S.S. Pelboubet, 1882.) ---In sum, Wikipedia has solved a small but interesting problem by using Google search, and there is no reason anymore for anyone to use the Corwin version of the quotation. we should use it because it is authentic and tells a lot about how Marshall wrote his famous decisions. Rjensen (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that you go ahead and revise this portion of the Wikipedia article as best you can, and then I'll comment and maybe tweak it. The quote can be interpreted in radically different ways, and that ambiguity is my main reason for disliking it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
OK-- I don't see the ambiguity. It's the IMPLICATIONS that you're concerned with, but let the readers figure those out. notes: Parsons, Theophilus, 1797---1882, father was a famous political leader in Mass,; son graduated Harvard college, studied law with a famous scholar, was an active journalist (hence his interviewing skills). In 1848 appointed one of three professors in the Harvard Law School; retired 1869. In addition to their lectures he on occasion addressed the entire school on subjects of legal and political interest. Parsons' oft-repeated anecdotes at these times became traditional. He wrote many legal textbooks.(from Dict. Am. Bio. 1935); Proctor, Lucien Brock, 1823 - 1900, lawyer and writer; He is best known for his anecdotal histories of lawyers and the bar; he lived upstate NY and published in Albany Law Journal and likely he read Parsons article there. He clearly read widely and collected anecdotes. (from Dict. Am. Bio.) Rjensen (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the key here is that Parsons says Marshall made his decision AFTER listening to the oral arguments, not before. A lawyer can figure out the implications, but we're writing for lay people.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Last surviving founder of the United States

I don't see why Burr should get the honor. Paine Wingate (May 14, 1739 – March 7, 1838) died at age 98 in 1838, at which time he was the last surviving delegate to the Continental Congress and the last surviving member of the first United States Senate. Burr did not serve in federal office until 1791, although he did fight in the Revolution (as did Andrew Jackson who lived a lot longer).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

== Paine Wingate??? == You propose to elevate Paine Wingate to Founding Father status just because, it appears, you dislike Burr? That seems a bit too much of a reach. Find any source (other than ones you created) that lists him among the Founding Fathers. ZipperScooter (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't currently say that Wingate was a founding father or a founder, though he is according to some definitions. Nor is Burr removed from the sentence where you inserted him.

Per Founding Fathers of the United States, "Some historians define the 'Founding Fathers' to mean a larger group, including not only the Signers and the Framers but also all those who, whether as politicians, jurists, statesmen, soldiers, diplomats, or ordinary citizens, took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America." Note that Burr was not a signer or framer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

=True that, as written, it does not say Wingate is a "Founding Father" but that is certainly the implication. And, given you also added Wingate to the list in the Founding Fathers page, it seems reasonable to conclude that was your intention. As for worrying about "Signers and Framers," Marshall does not fit that category either. He was a junior officer in the war and a member of Virginia's ratification convention, but hardly a major figure until Adams's administration. ZipperScooter (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that Marshall participating in the Virginia rarification convention was functionally equivalent to being a signer. Burr didn't do anything like that. Likewise, Wingate was in the Senate to vote on the Bill of Rights, and Wingate was also in the continental congress when the country was transitioning from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. All during that time, Burr was in state government. To say that Burr was a founder, when he actually attempted the opposite, seems like a stretch to me, but I'd be okay with how this article reads now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean "To say that Burr was a founder, when he actually attempted the opposite...." His war record is clear enough. He gave no public opinion on the ratification of the Constitution (he likely was in the

camp that wanted changes, but so was Patrick Henry). If you mean his flirtation with New England Federalists about a separate northern country, that appears to be no more than "what if" talk. His goals in his misadventures in west are unclear, but almost certainly didn't involve any serious thought of breaking up the Union.

On the other hand, Ellis (again) lists Burr among the "eight most prominent political leaders in the early republic" (page 17). Even Marshall does not make that cut. As for Wingate. I have nothing against him, but to include him in a list of founding faters is to lower the bar to the point that several hundred other people would have to be listed as well. ZipperScooter (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside how Ellis defines "early republic", the eight listed were: George Washington, Abigail and John Adams, Aaron Burr, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Since Marshall isn't on that list, the significance of the list for the present Wikipedia article may be open to question; certainly the omission of people like Patrick Henry, John Jay, Roger Sherman, Sam Adams, and George Mason in favor of Burr seems somewhat idiosyncratic of Ellis. Anyway, regarding the sentence in this Wikipedia article, it's about longevity, and Wingate's feat in that regard as the last surviving member of the continental congress seems worth mentioning no less than Burr's longevity; the sentence is okay without labelling anyone a "founder", I think (Ellis' list is not a list of "founders"). If the main disagreement here is about whether Burr was more of a founder than Wingate, maybe the best place to discuss that would be at the Wikipedia article about the founders.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No mention of the part he played in the expulsion of the Cherokee people in Georgia even though it is an important part of history. Are we trying to tell the truth or just glorify historical figures?

The Court did hear the case but declined to rule on the merits. The Court determined that the framers of the Constitution did not really consider the Indian Tribes as foreign nations but more as "domestic dependent nation[s]" and consequently the Cherokee Nation lacked the standing to sue as a "foreign" nation. Chief Justice Marshall said; "The court has bestowed its best attention on this question, and, after mature deliberation, the majority is of the opinion that an Indian tribe or nation within the United States is not a foreign state in the sense of the constitution, and cannot maintain an action in the courts of the United States. " [CHEROKEE NATION v. STATE OF GA., 30 U.S. 1 (1831)] The Court held open the possibility that it yet might rule in favor of the Cherokee "in a proper case with proper parties".

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that "the relationship of the tribes to the United States resembles that of a ‘ward to its guardian'."

The court ruling resulted in the expulsion of the Cherokee nation. Their relocation and route is called the “The Trail of Tears.” Of the 15,000 who left, 4000 died on the journey to “Indian Territory” in the present-day state of Oklahoma.

In 1823 Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court decreed that the Cherokees had certain rights to their land in Georgia by dint of their "occupancy" but that the whites had superior rights owing to their "discovery". How do Indians manage to occupy Georgia without having previously discovered it?

John Marshall is sometimes lauded as the "greatest judicial advocate of Indian sovereignty." After the Marshall trilogy, federal primacy over indigenous peoples would be presented as "protection" and this image would come to dominate "federal Indian law." Marshall's adoption of "Christian discovery" as the foundation of land title in the United States has only rarely been seen for what it is: a subjugation of indigenous peoples to 15th century theological and colonial legalisms, in derogation of their status as free and independent nations.

Sources http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cherokee_Nation_v._Georgia http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/marshall_jow.html "Lies My Teacher Told Me About Christopher Columbus: What History Books Got Wrong" by James W. Loewen

Feel free to add it. It should be included. The genocide and forced removal of the Cherokee nation and the party of the Jackson Administration and the courts in the Trail of Tears, etc. deserves full exposition. Please provide the usual WP:RS. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

From Commons

someone posted this entirely unsource biography at commons, i moved it here in case some of the facts are not in article and could be researched: [~16kB removed] Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

How about we just let people read the original if they want to research. I don't think it belongs here either, given that it was unattributed there (likely a copyvio) and seems to be spammed in many places on the net for unclear reasons. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent statement

The statement: "In 1773, the Marshall family moved once again. Thomas Marshall, by then a man of substantial means, purchased a 1,700 acres (6.9 km2) estate adjacent to North Cobbler Mountain, approximately ten miles northwest of the Hollow. ...Thomas Marshall built Oak Hill there." (sourced from Definer of a Nation, p. 36) appears to be incorrect.

"North Cobbler Mountain" appears to mean the more northerly of the two peaks Little Cobbler Mountain and Big Cobbler Mountain, which are the only relevant peaks in the area.

The location of The Hollow is well established by the NRHP nomination cited in our article (and was previously incorrect), though it takes some reading and map work to place it.

The location of Oak Hill is well established by the NRHP nomination cited in our article. However, the map shown on page 7 of that doc (which is consistent with both it and other documents) shows a tract that is only about 200 acres (about 80% of the 3,000 ft × 3,375 ft (914 m × 1,029 m) containing rectangle).

Additionally, Oak Hill is not ten miles northwest of The Hollow – it's about four miles ESE.

So, barring any explanation of the discrepancies, I'm removing the reference to the size of Oak Hill and bearing/distance from The Hollow since, even though they are from a published book, they don't match the well-established locations. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC), edited —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John Marshall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Marshall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Marshall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Marshall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Marshall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Weird stuff inserted into the Early Years section

What's this material about Marshall's homes and his later religious beliefs doing in the Early Years section? It doesn't even fit within the dates of the section title? Seems like a screwy edit or deletion of a subsection happened. The material is fine, but either needs its own section(s) or should be deleted from Early Years. MikeGodwin (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

John Price Posey

John Marshall is famously known for his role in Marbury v. Madison. This however is not his first brush with judicial review.

In 1783, while Marshall was a member of the Virginia Council of State, the council was asked to remove Posey. The grounds were that Posey "had been guilty of diverse gross misdemeanors, disgraceful to the Character which should be preserved by a Justice of the Peace."

Marshall's response was that "The Law authorizing the Executive to enquire into the Conduct of a Magistrate and determine whether he has or has not committed a certain act is repugnant to the Act of Government, contrary to the fundamental principles of our constitution, and directly opposite to the general tenor of our Laws."

Marshall had a track record of negativing unconstitutional laws. It helps tell the story of who he was and should be included in the overall article.

https://books.google.com/books?id=b_5ZDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA280 https://books.google.com/books?id=UT0_MCzwRW4C&pg=PA140 https://books.google.com/books?id=9mnzC4-qfMEC&pg=PA95

Progressingamerica (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Article unclear in section about John Marshall's Continental Army service

Both John Marshall and his father, Thomas Marshall, joined the Continental Army. The article continues to refer only to Marshall afterwards, making it unclear which of them the article is discussing. After the Revolutionary War, it says Marshall returned to civilian life and had the help of his influential father-in-law, but there is no reference to John Marshall being married and I believe it is referring to his father, Thomas Marshall, but I can't be certain because last names only are being used. Clarification is needed. 63.230.120.52 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Elizabeth Cogliati

Marshall and slavery

I'm writing here rather than edit the text because both of the cited sources have very real issues, which may have been addressed by archived posts, but not by the publishing presses (Penguin Random House and Harvard University Press). Particularly compared to them, I have limited time and could not find a law review article (in a couple of independent searches) citation to which could quickly resolve these issue. First, the first name of the author of the cited Paul book is "Joel" not John. In the cited pages (in a chapter entitled "Slaves and Hypocrites"), Paul does discuss several cases in which Marshall successfully defended slaves (including one convicted of murdering a slavecatcher who mistakenly broke into her home, and for whom Marshall secured a pardon), which Finkelman's more recent writings continue to choose to ignore. Another somewhat recent Marshall bio like Paul also says that at Robin Spurlock's urging, Marshall sponsored the bill that became Virginia law (and whose interpretation eventually led to George Wythe's death)[<--I don't understand though I read Wythe's entry - apologies.2603:7000:413F:942C:C51A:9DD5:9437:9CD (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)] whereby children of Native American mothers were considered born free. But neither of these book bio authors gives a statutory citation--Paul apparently just citing to a 1996 biography which I haven't tracked down. More seriously, the cited page 46 only uses the "household slave" number (IMHO mistakenly) also used by previous law review authors cited (but inaccurately discussed) by Finkelman. One of those decades old law review articles also says Marshall probated the estate of John Graham (diplomat) which freed slaves. Neither author discusses Marshall's slavery rules as evolving, nor Bushrod Washington's possible pro-slavery role.Jweaver28 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I've begun editing the slavery section, though COVID, my other responsibilities and cyberharassment continue to complicate matters (today's the fifth deliberately unidentified no message call from a cellphone using 800-875-5164). As of yesterday, Hein online shows another article about this issue, published in the November 2020 journal of the Supreme Court Historical Society, but embargoed. The last issue the Library of Congress' copyright office received was published before the pandemic (vol. 1) and this is in vol.3. For what it's worth, the Paul book does mention slavery many more times, but I did not bring it to the cafe this morning, and forgot to download the August 2020 U.Chgo.L.Rev. online pdfs (at least one of which also cites the new academic author in addition to Hobson as one of its reviewers, along with Harvard University Press' permission). When I returned home and retrieved the 2018 HUP book, they seem derived (though not exact copies of) its Chapter II, which I cited last evening.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Marshall's Skin Colour

Why is it that Mr. Marshall's picture depicts him as having pale skin when, in descriptions that l read while watching a documentary online say that he had DARK skin?Tnarrud3 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

allegation of Marshall's mother being shunned

In the Early Life section is this statement: "Despite her ancestry, Mary was shunned by the Randolph family because her mother, Mary Isham Randolph, had eloped with a man believed beneath her station in life." This most likely comes from the "Legend of the Randolph's" from an 1885 fabled ancestry of her father, James Keith, repeated through several biographies of John Marshall and most recently embroidered by Jean Edward Smith. The legendary elopement included here provides a cautionary tale in the use of secondary sources, and it should be stricken. HeleneDesRacines (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Marshall/Archive_1&oldid=1241207927"