>>> Item number 616, dated 95/12/06 08:56:34 -- ALL
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 08:56:34 -0600 Reply-To: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> From: Chris Waldrep <cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Subject: Can we have more discussion?
From: RPalmer@UH.EDU (Robert C. Palmer)
Is nobody worried about the apparent perception that the H-Law list is
really only about sharing bibliographical information? Granted that these
lists are quite useful for that function, I would prefer to see more
substantive questions raised and discussed. I tried that about two years
ago, and it fell flat: I will thus restrain myself at this point. But if
this really is a "legal history discussion list" why don't we discuss legal
history instead of bibliographies?
Bob Palmer
University of Houston
>>> Item number 617, dated 95/12/06 12:01:54 -- ALL
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 12:01:54 -0600 Reply-To: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> From: Chris Waldrep <cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Subject: Re: Can we have more discussion?
From: Jon Swainger <swainger@unbc.edu>
I'm unsure this is an either/or proposition. The fact is that for some
of us the community of legal historians is rather distant, in that we are
not attached to either a law school or reside in a community which has
other legal historians. Therefore, the bibliographic material is very
useful in keeping one up on what is being used and how. Second, the
topics of the week have, in fact, generated a fair bit of "lively"
discussion which I personally have found very interesting and
informative.
My query would be, therefore, what issues or concerns exactly are you
looking for and not finding. I'm not doubting your concerns or its
validity, but I would be interested in exactly what you would be
interested in pursuing.
All the best,
Jon Swainger
History Programme
University of Northern British Columbia
>>> Item number 619, dated 95/12/06 13:03:57 -- ALL
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 13:03:57 -0600 Reply-To: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> From: Chris Waldrep <cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Subject: Reply to Can we have more discussion?
From: CHOWARD@tarleton.edu
I strongly second Dr. Palmer's motion. An example of a discussion question might be: "What impact did the Nuremburg trials have on American and/or European concepts of international justice," "Can international war crime trials be objective or are just hanging the losers," "Should the Nuremburg trials be an example for future war crime trials?" "Did Justice Jackson's performance at Nuremberg harm his reputation or that of the Supreme Court's?"
Charlie Howard
Tarleton State Univ.
>>> Item number 621, dated 95/12/07 07:30:48 -- ALL
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 07:30:48 -0600 Reply-To: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> From: Chris Waldrep <cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Subject: Re: Reply to Can we have more discussion?
From: Frank.Sharman@flinders.edu.au (Frank Sharman)
There might be a numbers problem here. How many people in the world are interested in legal history and how much legal history is there? If the answers are "Not all that many really" and "A rather infinite amount", then it is likely that most legal historians are working on bits of legal history which no one else is working on. Charlie Howard wants to discuss the Nuremburg Trials. I know next to nothing about them; I would not care to venture an opinion on them. I might be able to discuss some aspects of the early legal history of South Australia; if pushed, I might natter a bit about copyhold tenure or enclosure law in England. Would Charlie like to say anything about either of these matters?!
I suppose it's a bit like conferences where everyone politely puts up with everyone else's papers until they get to the really interesting bit - their own paper. But sometimes someone says something which sparks interest. On that sort of analogy it may be that instead of putting up titles for topics, people could produce draft working preliminary tentative papers on subjects they are working on and see what reaction is produced.
Otherwise the only matter I can think of which might be of interest to all legal historians is stuff on methodology or historiography (though, coming to think about it, I am not sure of I know what that word means).
Frank A.Sharman, Lecturer in Legal Studies, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001. Telephone: 08-201-3847. Fax: 08-201-3845. [Look! no quotes, no graphics]
>>> Item number 622, dated 95/12/07 07:33:32 -- ALL
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 07:33:32 -0600 Reply-To: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> From: Chris Waldrep <cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Subject: Can we have more discussion?
From: "Richard I. Aaron" <RICHARD.AARON@law.utah.edu>
I enthusiastically endorse the suggestion that the H-Law is an underused opportunity for discussion amongst the participants.
There appears to be a wide and disparate interest amongst participants. I am content to be a listener as to most discussions. For example, if Professor Palmer wants to take issue with some of his reviews, I am most likely to be watcher, but I'll be delighted to see the discussion.
There are issues which are important to me, however. For example, I continued to be baffled by the claim to new insights amongst the scholars claiming association with the Conference on Critical Legal Studies. It sounds like Willard Hurst to me with new labels. Sort of like the comments about the discoveries by the Legal Realists in relation to Oliver Wendell Holmes. Duncan Kennedy appeared here for a scholarly lecture a couple of weeks ago, and I sought to prime my students for an interesting opportunity. Kennedy did not go over well amongst an audience predisposed to support. Is it my bias as a student of Hurst? What am I missing? I've got the bibliography. I tried to wade through a fair share of it. So I need the discussion proposed, not the references.
I do welcome the bibliographic references. Mostly, I file them away under the heading of Some Day When I Get the Time. Unfortunately the some days are dwindling for me. The real time discussion via bytes through the ether are right now.
Richard Aaron, University of Utah College of Law. richard.aaron@law.utah.edu
--KAA01614.818272166/fcom.cc.utah.edu--
>>> Item number 624, dated 95/12/07 09:16:09 -- ALL
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 09:16:09 -0600 Reply-To: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> From: Chris Waldrep <cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Subject: Can We Have More Discussion?
From: Sebrina Deshields <brinajo@clam.rutgers.edu>
Frank,
I must respectfully disagree with you. I am a law student who signed up to
this list because I am very interested in Legal History. I must admit to
being a little disappointed at what I have received thus far. I would love
to read what ever it is that you know about Australian legal history. I want
to not only learn the law but to truly understand the law, and see how it all
fits together today, and what it might look like tomorrow.
Sebrina DeShields, 2L Rutgers-Camden Law School, Camden, NJ
From: Jonathan Lurie <jlurie@andromeda.rutgers.edu>
Having enjoyed several of Profssor Palmer's "comments" on topics in legal history on the H law previously, I can understand his comment, but I see no reason why H-Law is not compatible either with bibliographical information or discussion of substantive issues of legal history.
>>> Item number 625, dated 95/12/07 09:37:26 -- ALL
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 09:37:26 -0600 Reply-To: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> From: Chris Waldrep <cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Subject: A Discussion about Discussion
From: H-Law Editor (Christopher Waldrep)
I certainly endorse Bob Palmer's call for more substantive discussion. I also, of course, agree with Jon Lurie and Jon Swainger that there is nothing wrong with bibliographic exchanges on H-Law. Certainly, we could do both.
But we usually don't. There are a number of excellent topics on the table right now. Instead of talking about talking, we could discuss any of these:
Can we apply the doctrine of command responsibility to other settings? Why not war crimes trials for captains of industry?
What impact did the Nuremberg trials have on American and/or European concepts of international justice?
Can international war crime trials be objective?
Should the Nuremberg trials be an example for future war crime trials?
Did Justice Jackson's performance at Nuremberg harm his reputation or that of the Supreme Court's?
And there are previous week's topics:
Comparative history? Is it possible to know something by looking at one venue?
Lawyers' papers? I believe someone on this list said Abraham Lincoln's legal papers should not be open to historians. Apparently, that was not provocative enough to prompt discussion. I'm amazed.
I don't think numbers explain the apparent lack of interest in these very substantive topics. As Finkelman and Bernstein have demonstrated, even just two scholars can launch a lively discussion. If as few as two people picked up any of the above topics, or others, we would have a lot good discussion. Several people are now on record as favoring such a discussion. I urge them to step forward.
I will have to say this, however. We are all busy. One of the strengths of H-Law is that we have an average of two messages a day. Those two messages may be better than the five or six messages a day some lists put out. And one of H-Law's best achievements is something that did not happen. We did NOT have a debate about OJ Simpson. Sometimes, less is more.
Chris Waldrep
H-Law Editor
cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
Eastern Illinois University
Charleston, Illinois 61920
>>> Item number 626, dated 95/12/07 09:44:16 -- ALL
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 09:44:16 -0600 Reply-To: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> From: Chris Waldrep <cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Subject: Re: Can we have more discussion?
Editor's Note:
While I wrote a message calling on H-Law subscribers to step forward
and actually discuss issues, rather than merely talking about talking,
Bob Palmer produced a long list of items for discussion. Surely someone
will find something on this list to talk about.
Chris Waldrep
H-Law Editor
From: RPalmer@UH.EDU (Robert C. Palmer)
But what might we discuss? Let me suggest some items that would be far more
interesting than bibliographic questions (once again: this is a great
place
to get help with bibliography and I will not flinch from using it for that.
Bibliography, however, should not be the highest level of thought we get
here.)
My position is that, instead of answering questions with a short reference
to an author ("I would have thought that X answered that definitively in
his/her book "Y""), an answer would have to be formulated substantively,
stating one's understanding of that author's thesis in relation to the
question put.
I suspect one could formulate quite a few more questions that would involve
good conceptual issues. Not all of them would be interesting to everyone,
but those who teach either American or English legal history would be
interested in a fair number of them. And the questions involve relatively
important matters that many people would have to touch on at one time or
another. As I mentioned before, I will not take the lead on these. My
former attempt was an abysmal failure, probably because of my slash-and-burn
style of argument. Still, wouldn't it be interesting for someone to stick
his/her neck out far enough in the list to provoke discussion on any matter
like the things above? This forum is nice precisely because one should be
concise (unlike this message); and the willingness to be clear at the
expense of being vulnerable to attack is a great service.
Bob Palmer
University of Houston
>>> Item number 628, dated 95/12/07 09:46:43 -- ALL
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 09:46:43 -0600 Reply-To: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> From: Chris Waldrep <cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Subject: Re: Reply to Can we have more discussion?
From: Michael A Bellesiles <mbelles@emory.edu>
Please allow me to reply to Mr. Sharman's comments that only our own research is of interest to us. At conferences, I usually get much more from the other papers since I have already read my own. On this discussion list I am certainly very interested in what others have found in my area of research broadly defined (early American law), but am even more interested by what other scholars are discovering. No offense to my colleagues in early American law, but mostly I have heard or read most of their judgments (i.e. let us all agree to avoid a discussion of original intent). In contrast, I am fascinated by Nuremburg and the very idea of war trials. There are certainly links to my own period here; i.e. F. Lieber and E.A. Hitchchock would have been delighted, I think. At any rate, may I encourage those of you participating in these discussions to continue, assured that many of us enjoy the give and take often because we know little about a significant subject. Sincerely, Michael Bellesiles, Emory
>>> Item number 633, dated 95/12/08 08:04:32 -- ALL
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:04:32 -0600 Reply-To: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> From: Chris Waldrep <cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Subject: Re: Reply to Can we have more discussion?
From: PantherPro@aol.com
Frank Sharman,
> There might be a numbers problem here. How many people in the world are > interested in legal history and how much legal history is there? If the > answers are "Not all that many really" and "A rather infinite amount", then > it is likely that most legal historians are working on bits of legal > history which no one else is working on.
I think there definitely is a numbers problem starting with the finite number of us interested in the subject in the first place. Now carve up that number into finely and not so finely cut interest areas and we have enlarged, not diminished the problem. Throw in what may be of interest today may not be of particular interest tomorrow again narrows the field. For example, it raises the question to me as to what am I doing here with my interest (today, or until I get the manuscript finished) in Saxon law among relatively contemporary topics. Tomorrow I could become intensely interested in the Nuremberg Trials, a desire unknown to me today, or S. Australia's legal history. We have an abundance of facets with a select group of people. Is it indeed possible to be all things to everybody at any particular time?
> I suppose it's a bit like conferences where everyone politely puts up with > everyone else's papers until they get to the really interesting bit - their > own paper. But sometimes someone says something which sparks interest. On > that sort of analogy it may be that instead of putting up titles for > topics, people could produce draft working preliminary tentative papers on > subjects they are working on and see what reaction is produced.
Your conference analogy is appealing and I see it as possibly the only
viable alternative to splitting this group into a myriad of sub-parts, which,
in my opinion, would be generally counterproductive. Likewise I read all
postings, decide with the help of a crystal ball what I may find interesting
in the future, and file it. I can also see the benefits of working drafts for
later retrieval with a listing published monthly/quarterly. If one piqued
one's
interest, the author could be contacted directly keeping the labor to the
monitor, who has enough to do, at a minimum.
> Otherwise the only matter I can think of which might be of interest to all > legal historians is stuff on methodology or historiography (though, coming > to think about it, I am not sure of I know what that word means).
I thought we were supposed to know that stuff already.
My two pence for what it's worth.
Regards.
>>> Item number 648, dated 95/12/09 07:49:29 -- ALL
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 07:49:29 -0600 Reply-To: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net and ASLH Legal History Discussion list <H-LAW@MSU.EDU> From: Chris Waldrep <cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Subject: Re: Can we have more discussion?
From: Tim Carmichael <timc@h-net.msu.edu>
As an Africanist historian recently turned on to legal history I have taken particular notice of the recent postings about broader discussions on H-LAW. I would like to see more exchange about research agendas, methodology and (at least initially) comments about the present state of various legal studies, all of which could form the basis for a more comparative discussion among subscribers with diverse interests.
I came upon legal history after locating a corpus of court records from Harar, Ethiopia, where I was conducting preliminary investigations on Islamic history and trying to define a specific topic/era for my dissertation. I was intrigued by the existence of parallel court systems: a local Muslim one, and a secular (/Christian) state court instituted after the city's conquest in the late nineteenth century. It seemed to me that there were exciting possibilities for writing a social or political or economic or religious history based on the combined documents from these two systems.
After returning to the US I began to look for other histories based on court records and found an extensive literature that I was previously not aware of. I have spent the past few months trying to survey the field of legal history in the Middle East and Africa. I have found that most, and usually the best, studies deal with family law and issues of marriage, divorce and inheritance (and especially land cases). Also, some of the work that I have found most satisfying, from the viewpoint of reconciling the study of the law with continuity and change in the lives of real people, has been published by anthropologists. When their work adopts an historical perspective I find the disciplinary boundaries to be largely irrelevant. Are there any legal anthropologists or sociologists lurking out there?
I sketch my limited background and initial impressions of legal history in order to propose an agenda which may help broaden our discussions. I would find it helpful and enlightening if scholars specializing in different fields and subfields of legal history, around the globe, would take a few moments to share their views of the state and history of their field, sort of a review article in brief. I think such contributions would be generally useful for other subscribers as background information against which to make sense of future postings on more narrow topics. Certainly they would help me situate issues and topics within the study of US legal history, of which I know only what I've read on this list. Presumably they would also enable us to formulate better questions and criticisms of others' postings and our own work.
Briefly, what I am suggesting is to try to establish a more clearly defined "playing field" in which we all, despite our geographic or topical interests, might discern a place for ourselves on this list. I don't think that general or comparative contributions should be the order of the day, but I think that they will illuminate more specific issues for a broader percentage of H-LAW subscribers. Since I have yet to see a posting on an issue outside of the US or Europe (though it is quite possible I have missed some) I would also like to know if there are many other subscribers interested in African or Islamic law.
I apologize for the length of this message.