|
|
This is a question that really ought to be crossposted on H-Law, where a
bunch of legal historians have been busy discussing the Reconstruction
era, among other things.
There is indeed, as some previous messages have suggested, a very large
post- and anti-Beardian literature on the subject of the Fourteenth
Amendment. One study that directly addresses the Beards' interpretation
and the Conkling statements is Joseph B. James, _The Framing of the
Fourteenth Amendment_ (1956), ch.14. More recently, legal historians like
Harold Hyman, William Wiecek, and William Nelson have written about the
amendment's origins and history; see especially the latter's book, _The
Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle to Judicial Doctrine_
(1988). Eric Foner's big survey _Reconstruction: America's Unfinished
Revolution 1863-1877_ (1988) is another good resource. Foner emphasizes
the intent not only to shore up and protect the rights of blacks but to
change and broaden "the meaning of freedom for all Americans" (p.258), a
theme he elaborates on in his new study, _The Story of American Freedom_
(1998). Finally, the recent prize-winning book by political scientist
Rogers M. Smith, _Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S.
History_ (1997), is also very useful.
The Beardian view is no longer subscribed to by most scholars writing
about this amendment.
Douglas Deal
Professor of History and Director of General Education
State University of New York at Oswego
Oswego, NY 13126
deal@oswego.edu (e-mail)
(315)-341-5631 (voice mail)
(315)-341-3577 (FAX)
|
|
|
 Send comments and questions to admin@eh.net
|
||