Alfred H. Kelly

Maintenance of Revolutionary Values

Though the values and institutional structure of the American system of constitutional liberty have to some extent exhibited extraordinary continuity, it has evolved with the growth of the American social and political order and successive political crises. The Revolutionary era saw the emergence of 2 or 3 closely related ideas about man and his relation to the state, which served as the foundations of Americas constitutional democracy—the ideas of limited government, natural rights, and the concept of an open society. It is the theory of natural law, natural right, the compact theory of the state, and limited government that Jefferson incorporated in the Declaration of Independence. But it cannot be assumed that the Declaration and the Revolution completed the union between natural rights and human equality. In many respects the sociopolitical structure out of which they came was not democratic at all. For in stance, it still tolerated slavery. The Bill of Rights provided a statement of natural and historical rights translated into law. Today, constitutional rights in the areas of equality, the dimensions of an open society, and nationalization of con stitutional liberty have changed substantially from those of the Revolutionary era.

JAMES A. HENRETTA. "Salutary Neglect": Colonial Administration under the Duke of Newcastle. Pp. xii, 381. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1972.

In describing the transition from an agricultural Britain to a managerial society, Harris interprets the many crises faced by Conservative leadership. In recent years, the issue has been to cope with the emergence of world capitalism. The challenge ahead for Conservatives, as the volume stresses, is to decide whether they should adjust to the declining sector which constitutes the heritage of their party, thus preserving &dquo;Britain&dquo; as the outstanding tradition. Harris concludes that there is no alternative to the need for the Conserva-

14.50

new bill enthusiastically-and persevering, practical-minded women’s associations like the National League of Women Voters, Medical Women’s National Association, and a dozen others, helped shape the law that was to regulate the most flagrantly dangerous practices in drug, food and cosmetic manufacture and labeling. Advertising of these items remained under the control of the Federal Trade Commission, and therefore was subject to less review, in spite of a vigorous battle to put it under the jurisdiction of the FDA through the

Michael Kammen. Empire and Interest: The American Colonies and the Politics of Mercantilism. Pp. x, 186. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1970.

explanation, the who, what, when, where, and how-and the why. Whichever level the historial uses he need not feel restricted to any form of historical explanation. Neither the foregoing summary, nor any pertinent statement of comparative brevity, can do justice to the comprehensive analysis of this closely reasoned book. Its arguments are bolstered by frequent references to concrete historical problems or events and it draws on an impressively wide range of reading, as the footnotes amply disclose. In pointing to the need for historical narrative in a new form that accords with today’s advanced behavioral knowledge, the author presents in his last paragraph an analogy with painting in which there has been a striking change from the romantic realism of Ingres to the visual and concomitant conceptual complexities of Picasso’s Girl Before a Mirror. The concluding sentence is: &dquo;Only by exploring new forms of exposition can the historian write history complex enough to satisfy the dual goal of accurately analyzing the past and producing a work appealing to the complicated consciousness of the modem reader.&dquo; WILSON H. COATES

4.95

J T is somewhat surprising that constitutional historians have paid little or no attention to the development of the law of libel since the crisis occasioned by the Sedition Act of I798. The history of seditious libel as it related to the growing eighteenth-century crisis over freedom of speech and press has received extensive treatment from the profession. But historians appear to have assumed that with the expiration of the I798 law and with the rapid decline thereafter of the frequency and significance of prosecutions for seditious libel in the several states, libel law ceased to have any great significance for the growth of American constitutional liberty. Any such assumption is in large part erroneous. Rather, what actually happened was that with the declining significance of state and federal prosecutions for criminal libel, actions for damages under the law of civil libel assumed increasing importance as a means of controlling false, reckless, and defamatory utterances, both in politics and public life and in the private affairs of men. As the Illinois Supreme Court observed nearly fifty years

GEORGE H. CALLCOTT. History in the United States, 1800-1860: Its Practice and Purpose. Pp. viii, 239. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1970.

friend, the well-known botanist, John Bartram, was the author of the idea. But, as in the later case of the Pennsylvania Hospital, it was Franklin who promoted it successfully. The Shop Books, the Ledgers, and the Record Books of the post offices afford realistic evidence of Franklin’s many business interests. His printing business expanded until he could write to his favorite sister, Jane Mecom: &dquo;I have already three separate printing-houses in three different Colonies and purpose setting up a fourth ...&dquo; (p. 384). Of all the books Franklin printed, he considered Cato Major, a translation by James Lofau of Cicero’s De Senectute, as his finest example of the art of printing. This, with other reasons, must have prevailed in the editors’ reproduction (p. 403) of its brilliant title page in red and black. There is also a map of Philadelphia for 1723-1776 showing properties owned by Franklin and some interesting new material on Franklin Court and the archway leading into it from High Street, provided by recent excavations by the National Park Service.

8.95

This book does not tell all the details concerning the American military establishment in the twentieth century. It is rather a study of the evolving relations among the top-level governing institutions of the executive branch in that field, and of the interacting influences of ideas, individuals, interests, and events in the molding of these institutions. It is a product of hard thinking and careful investigation, addressed to some of the most complicated and perplexing issues of organization within our constitutional framework, issues that in the postwar years have been associated with the successive controversies and frustrations over &dquo;unification.&dquo; The arrangement is historical, fittingly enough, since the shape and context of the issues have changed so much in a halfcentury. Four chapters, starting with Elihu Root’s reformation of the War De-

Constitutional Liberty and the Law of Libel: A Historian's View

had been in 1797. Jay’s Treaty was the true cause of the strain in French-American relations, not any misconduct on his part as the American minister to France. He still would have saved Tom Paine from the guillotine even though his conduct in the matter should again be made a cause of his dismissal as minister. He continued to deny that he had engaged in financial speculations while he was in France. Bitterly, he still insisted that Secretary of State Pickering had mistreated him and that he should have been given an officials explanation of the causes of his dismissal. No mention is made of the HamiltonReynolds affair or a letter he wrote to Logan for the Republican press-an incident important in the decision to recall Monroe according to the Carroll and Ashworth volume of Freeman’s George Washington. But Monroe was sharply critical when senators revealed the contents of Jay’s Treaty to the press before it became known through official channels. The autobiography also covers the generally neglected part of Monroe in the Louisiana Purchase and his Spanish mission of 1804-1805, concluding with its failure. The editor and his assistant, Donald G. Baker, have provided an excellent Intro-

LEONARD W. LEVY. Legacy of Suppression : Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History. Pp. xiv, 353. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1960.

even show what economic goals the Federalist leaders sought to reach. His studies of Jefferson and Hamilton have led him to exaggerate the importance of those two colorful men, whose prolific writings give a distorted view of the period. Adhering to the common view, Mr. Schachner pictures Hamilton as the Federalist titan and Washington as little more than a figurehead. Actually, Washington was the guiding genius. All the major Federalist policies harmonized with ideas which he had repeatedly expressed. On January 29, 1789, he wrote: &dquo;... my endeavours shall be unremittingly exerted (even at the hazard of former fame or present popularity) to extricate my country from the embarrassments in which it is entangled, through want of credit; and to establish a general system of policy, which if pursued will en-

6.50

Leadership). ’The rapprochement in I and III are primarily caused by the antagonism of both countries to English sea power. The clash in II is over Russian America and the South American Republics. The Russians and the Americans had a common interest in opposing England’s command of the sea, but for different reasons. The former wished to make sure of their imports in neutral ships, the latter, of their shipping, and under these conditions mutual co-operation failed even during the moments of greatest tension with England. The Russian actions in the North Pacific alienated the Americans far more than did the relations of Hawaii and England. There was a sentimental attraction between the two countries, but except for rare instances of personal contact no real community of feeling-an excess of friendly talk and a lack of real co-operation. It is possible that Baranov might have changed this, but he was unable to carry out his plans, and the Russian-Ameri-