Hein On-Line is marketed primarily to law schools – 80% of ABA-credited schools now subscribe.
As a result, of our agreement Hein now has rights to reproduce LHR page images in hardcopy, microform, and digital. The agreement is a 5-year, renewable, non-exclusive agreement to produce “exact electronic reprints” of retrospective volumes. Like JSTOR the process is at Hein’s expense. Hein offers a 15% Royalty on net revenues (JSTOR has also begun offering a royalty).
Hein anticipates that full mounting of all journals with which it has or is seeking contracts will take 5-10 years. Mounting of the most recent volume of a publication will not occur until 6-12 months after the last issue of the volume has been made available.
Joining Hein On-Line ensures that the journal’s contents are properly represented on-line in three major ways each serving a distinct component of our overall community of users: through JSTOR we will be represented in the major Arts and Sciences archive; through Hein we will be in the major law library archive (we are already of course in Lexis); through the History Cooperative we are already in the most sophisticated history archive available, added to which the Cooperative publishes our simultaneous electronic edition.
The possibility of harm for the journal lies in the effects on its institutional subscriber base. We have always been weak in this area, and despite our subscription campaign three years ago, we have had little success in adding new institutional subscribers. It is unlikely in my view that on-line availability through Hein will diminish the number of current institutional subscriptions any time soon, but this is also worth monitoring.
10. Future Developments
[a] LHR is planning to publish a special issue in 2008 on legal histories of war and peace.
[b] At the Austin and Cincinnati Board meetings, the question of expanding LHR to a quarterly has been broached. According to Clydette Wantland, a fourth issue per year (224-page default) would cost $6,900, excluding mass mailing postage. As she explained, the good news is that by going to four issues per year, LHR can apply for a periodical postage permit, thus lowering postage costs. Positive benefits also include more pages translating into higher royalties; ASLH could raise offprint fees to authors to help cover the additional costs; and the Society could charge more to libraries since they are getting another issue and more content. The downsides include paying for more pages for mounting in the History Cooperative, and also substantially more work for the editors.
Although I support the idea in principle of LHR becoming a quarterly, I believe that this matter requires careful consideration.
Studies in Legal History
Studies in Legal History is publishing one book in 2006:
Assaf Likhovski, Law and Identity in Mandate Palestine
One book is currently scheduled for 2007:
Jeannine DeLombard, “Slavery on Trial: Law, Abolitionism, and Print Culture”
Five manuscripts are under advance contract, three in American legal history and two on the European side:
Thomas A. Green and Hendrik Hartog, eds.: Elizabeth B. Clark, “The Politics of God and the Woman’s Vote: Religion in the American Suffrage Movement, 1848-1895”
Stephen Jacobson, “Catalan Advocates: Lawyers, Society and Politics in Barcelona, 1759-c. 1900”
Bruce A. Kimball, “C.C. Langdell and the Legal Foundation of Modern Professional Education, 1826-1906”
Michael Millender, “The Transformation of the American Criminal Trial, 1776-1860”
Richard Wetzell, “Between Retributive Justice and Social Hygiene: Penal Reform in Modern Germany, 1880-1945”
Likhovski was originally submitted to the series while Thomas Green and Hendrik Hartog were editors. Green and Hartog are jointly editing the Green & Hartog and Millender. Green is editing Jacobson and Wetzell. Ernst is editing DeLombard and Kimball.
During the past year, the editors received many new manuscripts and proposals for consideration. These divided evenly between the American side (Ernst) and the non-American side (Green). As to the latter, where the editors hope to expand our publication program gradually over the next several or more years, currently manuscripts under consideration include a half dozen on England and several on the continent. Much of the editors’ time has been devoted to work on manuscripts under an advance contract; some to giving authors readings of their work, in anticipation of a revision and resubmission for consideration for an advance contract; and some to advising authors at an earlier stage in their book projects.
The editors want to express their gratitude to our editor at the Press, Chuck Grench and to Chuck’s assistant Katy O’Brien. As always, we want also to thank Kate Torrey, Director of the Press, and David Perry, Editor in Chief; the Society owes a great deal to the University of North Carolina Press for its support and excellent standards of production over the past three decades.
Daniel Ernst, Thomas A. Green, Editors
The Committee has agreed to award the Reid Prize to Daniel J. Hulsebosch, Constituting Empire: New York and the Transformation of Constitutionalism in the Atlantic World, 1664-1830. The Committee also agreed that Stuart Banner, How the Indians Lost their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier, should be announced publicly as the runner-up.
Publishers in Canada and the United States (including the Cambridge and Oxford Presses) nominated approximately 40 books for the prize. Each member of the Committee submitted approximately six titles for reading by the Committee as a whole. Two books, Hulsebosch and Holly Brewer, By Birth or Consent: Children, Law & the Anglo-American Revolution in Authority, were suggested by all four committee members. Banner’s book was suggested by three. No other book was suggested by more than one member of the Committee. We thought, however, that we should read more than three books, and after discussion we accordingly decided that we also would read Rebecca Wittmann, Beyond Justice: The Auschwitz Trial, and James A. Wooten, The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974: A Political History.
The Committee was divided about whether to award the prize to Hulsebosch or Banner. Because he is a member of the same faculty as Hulsebosch, the chairman did not express an opinion or vote on whether Hulsebosch or Banner should receive the prize, although he did participate in discussions on the strengths and weaknesses of both books. After lengthy discussion, the Committee voted to award the Reid Prize to Hulsebosch.
The citation reads as follows:
The Committee is pleased to recommend that the ASLH’s John Reid Prize for 2006 be awarded to Daniel Hulsebosch, Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, for his book “Constituting Empire.” Daniel Hulsebosch’s book offers a sweeping reinterpretation of early American constitutional history that takes the reader from the imperial constitution of Lord Coke to the constitutional imperialism of Chancellor Kent. The heart of the analysis reassesses the meaning of the American Revolution as a constitutional event. Bringing original sources to light, using canonical sources in new ways, and building on the work of John Reid that has forced historians to take the legal grievances of the eighteenth century seriously, Hulsebosch demonstrates that the state and federal constitutions were shaped by North America’s imperial past. He shows how the raw material of the English constitution got remade by colonists and imperial agents on the ground, as well as by the British American lawyers who are now called Founding Fathers. He also illuminates the process by which legal practices were abstracted into formal ideas and how this formalization was a means to an end: first to unite a transatlantic empire, then to forge a more perfect Union. “Constituting Empire” does not pretend to have the last word on the American founding. But it may well have pioneered a new line of scholarship exploring the social politics of constitutionalism.
Cromwell Prize Committee
It is with pleasure that we report our unanimous recommendation for the award of the 2006 William Nelson Cromwell Foundation prize for the best work by a junior scholar in the field of American Legal History completed in 2005. The committee received seven books and four articles. Each submission was read by two members of the jury, who recommended prize-worthy finalists to be read by all. The committee considered 3 books and 1 article in the final round. In that final reading, one book was ranked first by every member of the committee.
We recommend that the prize be awarded to Professor Holly Brewer of North Carolina State University for her book, By Birth or Consent: Children, Law, and the Anglo-American Revolution in Authority (Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture by University of North Carolina Press, 2005). Brewer’s study places children and childhood at the center of a fundamental shift in the meaning of consent in seventeenth and eighteenth century Anglo-America. In taking seriously evidence from sixteenth century England that other scholars have ignored, seen as anomalous, or mistaken and then scrupulously following the changing evidence relating to children’s consent in a whole range of relationships vis-à-vis church, God, nation and relations with others, including baptism, allegiance, military service, jury service, testimony, transfers of property, labor contracts, and marriage through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Brewer captures the shift from status (birth) to reason as the foundation of consent. In doing so, she breathes a new and deeper meaning into the fundamental social, cultural, and political transformation captured by well-worn phrases such as “from status to contract” and “the age of reason” and highlights the religious roots of this transformation that begins with the Reformation and sees its full flowering in the political ferment of the American Revolution. This is a book about the legal creation of modern childhood as much as a book about how the child became a metaphor in eighteenth century political theory for those without the capacity to reason. Brewer thus captures how in a moment in which the consent of the people became the foundation for political authority, children in fact lost both personal and political power. And in turn, she highlights the power of children as an example that could be and was applied to exclude others, including women and African Americans, on the grounds that they too lacked the capacity to reason required in a government based on reasoned consent. Brewer weaves her powerful argument with grace and erudition, taking her reader from the Reformation through the American Revolution, crafting an Anglo-American legal history and drawing with equal facility on religious texts, political theory, legal treatises, and legal cases.
Barbara Y. Welke, Chair
Cromwell Fellowships Committee
September 7, 2006
Conrad Harper, Esq.
Henry Christensen, III, Esq.
Sullivan & Cromwell
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004-2498
Dear Mr. Harper and Mr. Christensen:
On behalf of the Cromwell Fellowship Advisory Committee, I present to you a slate of eight names, all of whom we think deserve the support of the William Nelson Cromwell Foundation. We received thirteen completed or nearly completed applications for fellowship, and of those these eight leaped to the top. Collectively, they are as strong as last year’s slate was weak. In the opinion of the members of the committee, the weakest recommended application this year is as strong as the strongest was last year. And they show, as last year’s applicants did not, the immense strength of the field of American legal and constitutional history at this moment. The topics they are exploring are wide ranging and exciting. The methods they are using in their research are both innovative and appropriate. They are all hardworking and productive young scholars. In funding their research, you will be giving symbolic and material aid to young women and men at the beginning of important careers, and you will be supporting transformative scholarship in American legal history.
Along with this letter, I am sending you a rank ordering of the slate of recommended applicants, a copy of all of the files we received, plus a copy of the notice we sent out.
This year the selection committee advertised on H-Law, and we sent copies of that notice to approximately sixty senior academics located in History Departments and Law Schools, asking them to post the notice and to pass it on to junior colleagues.
Our reading of the files raised two issues.
In the first place, we have had to confront what we mean by the sentence “Preference will be given to scholars at the early stages of their careers.” Most of the applications we received were from young scholars unmistakably at the “early stages” of what we predict will be distinguished careers. However, two of the applicants seemed clearly to stand outside or beyond the “early stages” preference. Both had tenure at universities. Both had completed and published at least one book. They were relatively easy for us to reject on that basis. But two other applicants seemed to stand in a less clear relationship to the standard: In one case, the applicant had tenure at a law school before beginning graduate work where he is completing a dissertation, and in the other case, the candidate is still working on his first book even though he has just received tenure at a law school. In both cases, we were quite excited by the work these two young scholars were doing, and we decided to recommend both of them for support. We discussed whether we wanted to restate the “preference” in more direct and unambiguous terms. We decided, subject to your review, that we would leave our criteria for seniority vague, as a preference.
Second, we wondered about the extent to which the funds of the William Nelson Cromwell Foundation should be available for work outside of narrowly defined “American legal history.” Clearly, the notice we wrote this year specified American legal history, and we received only one application outside of the category, one on early modern English legal history (which we rejected). But, as we are sure you realize, much of the most interesting recent work in legal history these days crosses narrow national boundaries and traditional definitions of the field. And we wonder if the foundation would be interested in supporting some of that wider body of new work.
Again, let me emphasize with what enthusiasm we submit this list of applicants. It’s a great group, and the work they produce will do credit to the William Nelson Cromwell Foundation.
Please call me, if you have any questions.
With all best wishes,
Chair, Cromwell Fellowship Advisory Committee
Class of 1921 Bicentennial Professor in the History of American Law and Liberty
Director, Program in American Studies
Rank Ordered List of Applicants
1. Nicholas Parrillo, J.D./ Ph.D (candidate), Yale Law School. Golieb Fellow, NYU Law School
He works on the legal history of governmental salaries and pay. He is asking for $4206 to continue his doctoral dissertation research.
1. Christopher Beauchamp, Ph.D., University of Cambridge. Postdoctoral scholar
He works on patent litigation in the late nineteenth century. He is asking for $4330, to begin postdoctoral research in turning his dissertation into a book.
3. Daniel J. Sharfstein, J.D. Yale Law School. Golieb Fellow, NYU Law School
He is writing a book length study of families whose racial identities shifted from African American to white from the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries. He is asking for $5951, to support a series of research trips.
3. Kenneth W. Mack, J.D. Harvard Law School; Ph. D. Princeton University. Harvard Law School faculty
He is completing a book on African American lawyers and their legal practice during the first half of the twentieth century. He is asking for $1220 for archival research.
3. Kunal Parker, J.D. Harvard Law School; Ph.D. Princeton University (candidate). Cleveland State Law School faculty; Golieb Fellow, NYU Law School
He works on changing understandings of history and of custom in nineteenth century legal thought. He is asking for $5000 to support the completion of his dissertation.
6. Sophia Lee, J.D./Ph.D (candidate), Yale Law School. Graduate Student, Yale University
She is completing a study of the NAACP and labor law. She is asking for $5000 to support archival research necessary for her dissertation.
6. Michael Boucai, J.D. Georgetown Law School. Researcher
He is at work on a project entitled, “Closed Cases and Unopened Closets: A Legal History of the Gay Movement.” He is asking for $990, to cover interviewing and other research costs.
6. Linda Tvrdy, J.D., Ph.D (candidate), Columbia. Graduate Student, Columbia University
She is completing a dissertation on how Reconstruction affected the administration of justice in North Carolina. She is asking for $6598, to cover archival research expenses.
Other applicants: Andrew Wender Cohen, Bruce Kimball, Roman J. Hoyas, Jennifer Armiger, David Smith.
This winter, the Preyer Committee began considering its charge to get the Preyer Competition up and running. After consultation with Past President Scheiber and President Donahue and detailed discussion between committee members, we posted the following announcement on H-Law on April 7.
ASLH Call for Papers: Kathryn T. Preyer Scholars Competition. The Kathryn T. Preyer Memorial Committee of the ASLH invites submission for the Kathryn T. Preyer Scholars Competition. The competition is named in honor of the late Kitty Preyer, a distinguished historian of early America and beloved member of the Society. The two winners of the competition will be named Kathryn T. Preyer Scholars. Each will present the paper that he or she submitted to the competition at the Society’s annual meeting in Baltimore on November 16-19, 2006. Kathryn T. Preyer Scholars will receive a $250 cash award and reimbursement of expenses of up to $750 for travel, hotels and meals.
Submissions are welcome on any legal, institutional and/or constitutional aspect of American history. Graduate students, law students, and other early-career scholars who have presented no more than two papers at a national conference are eligible to apply. Papers already submitted to the ASLH Program Committee, whether or not accepted for an existing panel, and papers never submitted are all equally eligible for the competition.
Submissions should include a curriculum vitae of the author, contact information, and a complete draft of the paper to be presented. The draft may be longer than could be presented in the time available at the meeting (twenty minutes) and should contain supporting documentation, but one of the criteria for selection will be the suitability of the paper for reduction to a twenty-minute oral presentation.
The deadline for submission is June 15, 2006. The Preyer Scholars will be named by August 1.
We also publicized the award in other ways, as best as we were able. For example, we sent notice of the award to historians who train large numbers of American legal historians and historians of early America. Despite the relatively late announcement of the award, we received more than twenty submissions, some of which were outstanding.
After substantial discussion, we chose our first two Preyer Scholars. They are Sophia Z. Lee, a JD/PhD student at Yale, for her paper, “Hotspots in a Cold War: The NAACP’s Postwar Labor Constitutionalism, 1948-1964” and Karen M. Tani, a JD/PhD student at the University for Pennsylvania for her paper, “Fleming v. Nestor: Anticommunism, The Welfare State and the Making of ‘New Property.’” The first Preyer Panel will feature the work of both. We hope that the panel will be well-attended. To that end, we considered ourselves exceptionally fortunate to tap as chair President Donahue, who will say something about Kitty Preyer and, coincidentally, edited Charles Reich’s “New Property” when he was on the Yale Law Journal. Commentators are Dan Ernst and Laura Kalman.
Though the first round of the Preyer Competition went more smoothly than we had any right to expect, given our late start, some questions remain about which we would appreciate the Board’s guidance.
1. Deadline for the competition and placement of Preyer Scholars on the program. The deadline for Preyer Competition submissions is currently June 15. While this deadline is good for graduate students who might not otherwise submit paper proposals to the Program Committee and whose inclusion we want to encourage, it is not ideal for the Program Committee, which has already settled on the program by the time. If the Program Committee could simply reserve a slot for the “Preyer Panel,” the situation would be more manageable. And indeed this year, both winners fit together substantively in the same panel well.
One solution is to put all winners, whatever their topics, together on a Preyer Panel. This decision would undoubtedly make life easier for Program Committee members. It does not, however, seem ideal to us, as it runs the risk of grouping Preyer Scholars together on no basis other than their junior status. Finding commentators who could link the two presentations together might prove difficult as well (though one Preyer Committee member suggested that we might lay that problem to rest by drafting Bob Gordon as commentator in perpetuity!)
If we do not take the single panel approach, and if we have two winners who work in different areas, the Program Committee would have to insert the winners belatedly in established panels, thereby upsetting months of hard work.
What we would face, then, is the likelihood that in some years, the Preyer Scholars would belong together on a Preyer Panel because of shared interests and, in other years, would have to be belatedly divided up between panels, with each winner being designated the “Preyer Scholar” on the panel.
None of these contingencies pose a problem for the members of the Preyer Committee. They may, however, pose a problem for the Program Committee.
How shall the Preyer Committee proceed?
2. Periodization and focus. Some members of the Preyer Committee think that the language of the Preyer Committee Call for Papers should more explicitly target a particular time period. That would make it more likely that the two winning papers would be more likely to hang together in one panel. Others suggest that making the award time-specific would be ill-advised because at different times, some periods attract more graduate students than others. Should we target a particular time period in the CFP? Moreover, there is also a question about whether we should limit our focus to “America.” Should we broaden the focus to “the Americas?”
3. Attracting more applicants who work in early America. We wonder whether Kitty Preyer would be spinning in her grave if she knew that the first two recipients of an award honoring her memory work in the twentieth century. (This anxiety is chiefly that of the Preyer Committee chair, who herself works in the twentieth century, but it keeps her awake some nights). Of course, Kitty showed legendary graciousness to all young scholars, whatever their field. But given her interests, it does seem to us that it would be desirable to attract better submissions in Early American history. We have some ideas as to how we can work towards this goal in the year ahead, but we seek the advice of the Board on how to do so as well.
In conclusion, we thank the Board for appointing us to the Preyer Committee. We have worked together very collegially, and we have welcomed the opportunity to honor Kitty Preyer’s memory.
Sarah Barringer Gordon
Laura Kalman, Chair
Murphy Research Award
I am writing to inform you that the Paul L. Murphy Research Award Committee (Michal Belknap, Harry Scheiber, Sandra VanBurkleo, and myself) has completed its review of applications for the 2006 Murphy Award. Because we were disappointed with the number (two) and quality (marginal) of the applications in the current cycle, we are recommending that no Murphy Award be made for 2006. Furthermore, it is the sense of the Committee that it would be prudent to redefine the award for future application cycles in order to attract more and better applications. I believe that the continuing members of the Committee will be submitting a redefinition proposal to the Society sometime this fall.
John Johnson, Chair
We recommend that Board adopt the following resolution:
“The Paul Murphy Prize is an annual prize to honor an article of great distinction published in the previous year in the field of American legal and constitutional history, with preference to articles that treat civil liberties, civil rights and human rights. Comparative studies in which the history of the United States is a major focus will qualify for the prize.”
The winner is Andrea McKenzie for “‘This Death Some Strong and Stout Hearted Man Doth Choose’: The Practice of Peine Forte et Dure in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century England” in LHR 23:2. And we awarded an honorable mention to Sally H. Clarke for “Unmanageable Risks: MacPherson v. Buick and the Emergence of a Mass Consumer Market” in 23:1. The citation follows:
Most historical accounts of punishment focus on those doing the punishing: the state and its agents. In this insightful and original article, Andrea McKenzie examines the meaning of the choices made by those enduring punishment. This account of the use of peine forte et dure in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England argues that courts interpreted the refusal of criminal defendants to answer charges against them as an attack on their own authority and legitimacy. Often, in fact, some defendants intended exactly that. In capital felony cases, judges subjected the uncooperative accused to the peine forte, the most gruesome method of physical torture at their disposal. Famously employed against an accused wizard in late seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts, the peine forte usually killed slowly and horribly. Those subjected to it either bore their fate stoically or quickly changed their minds and agreed to plead. McKenzies account emphasizes the nature of legal and judicial authority and, just as important, the motives of those who willingly chose the peine forte, knowing it probably meant death. For some, the chance to invert the inherent power structure of the criminal process was the opportunity to assert the ultimate moral authority in society. Moreover, the display of manly courage and resolve in the face of torture could be read as a rejection of the deferential, passive role thrust upon [such offenders] by the courts. McKenzie employs an expressive literary style, in keeping with the pathos of her sources, while unsentimentally exposing the power of the judicial process in the lives of ordinary people. This piece contributes fresh insights to the history of capital punishment, the meaning of pain and suffering, the interweaving of legal authority and religious faith, and the representation of masculinity in the early modern period. Its skilful blending of cultural and legal history provides a model for many other areas of inquiry.
Philip Girard, Chair
Let me begin by thanking both my fellow committee members, Professor Joseph Biancalana of the University of Cincinnati and Professor David Lemmings of the University of Newcastle, Australia. Both dealt with a mass of reading and the rather disorganised management of the committee chair with admirable efficiency and good humour. Our deliberations were immensely aided by Charlie Donahue’s provision of a research assistant, who created the core list of eligible articles and chapters from which we worked. Each committee member read a third of the total items on the list (distributed so as to avoid conflicts of interest), and recommended 2-3 items for the committee’s joint consideration.
The Committee is very pleased indeed to recommend that the ASLH’s Donald Sutherland article prize for 2006 be awarded to Dr Andrea McKenzie (Assistant Professor of History, University of Victoria, Canada), for ‘ “This Death Some Strong and Stout Hearted Man Doth Choose”: The Practice of Peine Forte et Dure in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century England’, Law & History Review, 23, 2 (2005). McKenzie’s winning article is distinguished by both its chronological range and its analytical reach. The practice of the peine, the pressing to death with heavy weights of those accused criminals who impeded the normal course of justice by refusing to plead to their indictments, stands as an anomaly both in the English legal tradition and in English legal historiography. At odds alike with the English law’s much-celebrated opposition to judicial torture and to its vaunted reliance on jury trials to determine guilt and innocence, the peine has hitherto puzzled legal historians, who have conventionally attributed defendants’ willingness to subject themselves to this horrific ordeal to the desire to transmit estates to heirs by avoiding criminal conviction. McKenzie’s article not only exposes the limits of this received interpretation but also provides a convincing series of alternative explanations. Her interpretation illuminates the history of the peine by situating legal practice within the context of the counter-theatre of the law as well as a spectrum of popular attitudes and discourses that range from religious conceptions of the martyr to plebeian conceptions of masculinity. The result is a compelling analysis that weaves together first-rate legal, social and cultural history to provide a compelling resolution to the conundrum of why early modern men and women chose to subject themselves to death by pressing rather than appealing to the celebrated mercies of the English jury system.
Margot C. Finn, Chair
Committee on Honors
1The Committee on Honors, consisting of Professors Barbara Black (Law, Columbia), Lawrence Friedman (Law, Stanford), Harry Scheiber (Law, U.C. Berkeley), James Whitman (Law, Yale), and me, wishes to nominate two individuals for honors this year. The first is Professor Anne Lefebvre-Teillard (University of Paris-II) as a Corresponding Fellow. The second is Professor Morton J. Horwitz (Harvard Law School). We are unanimous in both of these nominations, and we make them with great enthusiasm.
As you know, Corresponding Fellow is the highest award that the Society gives to legal historians outside the U.S. and Canada. Professor Anne Lefebvre-Teillard easily meets the very high standard the Society has set for this honor in the past. She received the degree of Docteur en Droit in 1970, after receiving a Diplôme d’Études Supérieures (D.E.S.) in legal history and a Diplôme d’Études Supérieures (D.E.S.) in private law. She was an Assistante with the Faculty of Law at Paris from 1967 to 1970 and was appointed Professeur at the University of Paris-XIII in 1970. She has been Professeur at the University of Paris-II (Panthéon-Assas) since 1986. Her two principle fields of research are canon law history and its influence on European legal systems and the history of French private law, especially family law.
Professor Lefebvre-Teillard is President of the Société d’Histoire du Droit, Directeur of the Centre d’Histoire du Droit et de l’Economie, and an associate member of l’Institut Michel Villey. She has also been elected to the Institut de France, a very prestigious honor, and is a member of the Selden Society. Professor Lefebvre-Teillard is the author of a great number of articles and books. Her book Introduction historique au droit des personnes et de la famille (An Introduction to the History of the Law of Persons and the Family) (PUF, 1996) was designated as “couronne” by the Center for Legal History at Paris II. Her other major works include Le nom : droit et histoire (PUF 1990) and La société anonyme au XIXe siécle : du Code de commerce á la loi de 1867, histoire d’un instrument juridique du développement capitaliste (PUF 1985). She seems by every measure to more than qualify for selection as a Corresponding Fellow.
The other nominee really needs no introduction. Morty Horwitz, whom we nominate as an Honorary Fellow, is one of the premier historians of American law in the country, indeed the world. Morty has been a member of the Harvard Law faculty since 1970 and the Charles Warren Professor of the History of American Law at Harvard Law School since 1981. He received a Ph.D in History from Harvard in 1964 and an LL.B. from Harvard Law School in 1967. His first book, The Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860 (Harvard University Press 1977), received the prestigious Bancroft Prize in 1978. Other books include The Warren Court and the Pursuit of Justice (Hill and Wang, 1998) and The Transformation of American Law, 1870-1960: The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy (Oxford University Press, 1992). He is the recipient of a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship, a Rockefeller Foundation Fellowship, and a Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship. His work has had a profound impact on American legal history. It seems more than fitting that the Society recognize Morty’s contributions by awarding him the highest honor we can give to a legal historian in North America.
Gregory S. Alexander, Chair
This year’s efforts were completed entirely via e-mail, rather than with scheduled conference calls, as in the past. This procedure seemed sufficient to complete the Committee’s business on schedule. There were five board positions to be filled, requiring a slate of ten candidates, and two nominating committee positions to be filled, requiring a slate of four candidates. The chair sent an initial e-mail to the members of the committee on 3/23. From a list of some forty names circulated by members of the committee, an initial list of fourteen, plus alternates, was assembled by 5/8. Thirteen of the fourteen on that list agreed to stand for election, although one of those subsequently withdrew. Two candidates for the board were moved up from the waiting list. Acceptances from all candidates were received by 6/2. Biographies were all received by 6/15. The President and Secretary-Treasurer were sent the slate and edited biographies (attached) on 6/15.
In 2005, the committee proposed consideration of a change in election procedures allowing for divided slates to facilitate the election of members from underrepresented constituencies, e.g., certain geographic or chronological specializations (see “Report of the Nominating Committee 2004–5”). No action has been taken on this proposal. The committee continues to support such a change, which would assist in the task of making the society’s governing bodies more broadly representative.
The committee notes that the bylaws do not in fact require two candidates for each open spot. This should be addressed at the next revision of the bylaws.
Adam Kosto, Chair
SLATE OF CANDIDATES FOR ASLH ELECTION 2006
Board of Directors (10 candidates; top 5 elected)
Lauren Benton is Professor of History at New York University. Benton received her Ph.D. in Anthropology and History from Johns Hopkins University, and her A.B. from Harvard University. Her research focuses on the comparative history of colonial law, especially early modern European empires in the Atlantic world. Recent publications include “Legal Spaces of Law: Piracy and the Origins of Ocean Regionalism,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 47 (2005) and Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400–1900 (2002), which won the Book Award from the World History Association and the James Willard Hurst Prize from the Law and Society Association. Benton is currently working on a book about the relation of law and geography in the formation of sovereignty in European empires through the end of the nineteenth century. She has been an active participant in meetings of the ASLH since 1999, and has served for the past two years on the Surrency Prize Committee.
Christine Desan is a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Her current research tries to understand the arrival of modern market-based liberalism by exploring its constitution as a matter of political economy. She has published parts of that work in “The Market as a Matter of Money: Denaturalizing Economic Currency in American Constitutional History,” Law and Social Inquiry 30 (2005) and “Money Talks: Listening to a History of Value,” Common-Place 6:3 (2006), and is working towards a book on the history of the early American political economy, called The Practice of Value: Early American Money and Finance as a Form of Governance. She received her J.D. from Yale Law School and an M.A.L.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, both in 1987, and has held fellowships from the Charles Warren Center, the American Philosophical Society, the ACLS, and the NEH. She has served on the ASLH Program Committee for the 1999 and 2005 meetings, the Willard Hurst Prize Committee (2000), the Preyer Committee, the Board of Editors of the Law and History Review (since 2001), and as Co-Chair of the Harvard Law School Legal History Colloquium (2003–2006).
William Forbath holds the Lloyd M. Bentsen Chair in Law and is Professor of History at UT Austin. He directs the Colloquium on Law, History, and the Humanities at UT, also has taught at UCLA and Columbia, and will be visiting at Harvard in 2007–2008. He holds degrees from Harvard (A.B.), Cambridge (M.A.), and Yale (J.D., Ph.D.). Current work addresses the role of law in the creation of the modern American state; the rise and fall and reconstruction of social citizenship in the USA and abroad; and race, nation-making, and state-building in the law and politics of European immigration to the USA at the turn of the last century. He is the author of Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement (1991) and about sixty articles, book chapters, and essays on social, legal, and constitutional history and theory. He has been active in the American Society for Legal History since the late 1980s, has served on the Program and the Future of the Society committees, and has been a member of the Editorial Board of Law & History since 2001. He also serves on the Editorial Board of Law & Social Inquiry.
Annette Gordon-Reed is a Professor of Law at New York Law School. She a graduate of Dartmouth College (1981) and Harvard Law School (1984). She has published Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (1997), written numerous articles and book reviews, edited Race on Trial: Law and Justice in American History (2002), and worked with Vernon Jordan on his memoir, Vernon Can Read (2001). Her book, The Hemings Family of Monticello: A Story of American Slavery, the first of what will be a two-volume work, is forthcoming from W.W. Norton in the Fall of 2007. Gordon-Reed is on the Advisory Committee for the Omohundro Institute of Early American Culture, where she serves on the Editorial Board of the William & Mary Quarterly; the Advisory Committee for the International Center for Jefferson Studies, the Executive Committee of The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, the Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute of the United Negro College Fund, and the Council on Foreign Relations. She previously served on the Nominating Committee for the American Society For Legal History and is currently serving as one of the judges for ASLH’s newly created John Philip Reid Prize for the best book written on legal history.
Sally Hadden is Associate Professor of History and Law at Florida State University. She received her Ph.D. (1993) and J.D. (1989) from Harvard, and her B.A. from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas appeared in 2001. Other publications include “The Fragmented Laws of Slavery in the Colonial and Revolutionary Eras,” in Christopher Tomlins and Michael Grossberg, eds., Cambridge History of Law in America (forthcoming), and “Benjamin Lynde, Junior: Servant of the Commonwealth,” Massachusetts Legal History 9 (2003). She is currently writing a comparative study of legal cultures in eighteenth-century Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston, which has received funding from the NEH. She is a life member of the ASLH, and has served the association in various capacities since 1994. She has worked on the Program Committee for the 1996 meeting and the Nominating Committee for 2002–2005 (chair for 2003-2005), and she currently leads the society’s Membership Committee. She has served on the H-Law editorial board since 1997. Recently, she joined the Law and History Review editorial board (2005–2010). Previously, she was a member of the editorial board for Law and Social Inquiry (2000–2003).
Tamar Herzog is Professor of History at Stanford University. She received her Ph.D. from the Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Paris (1994), and both a J.D. and an M.A. in Latin American Studies from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, and has taught in Madrid at the Universidad Complutense and the Universidad Autónoma and at the University of Chicago. She teaches European Legal History, as well as Early Modern Spanish and Spanish American History. She is the author of Upholding Justice: State, Law and the Penal System in Quito (2005), Defining Nations: Immigrants and Citizens in Early Modern Spain and Spanish America (2003), several other books (in Spanish) dealing with various aspects of Spanish colonial law, and numerous articles in American, English, Canadian, Spanish, French, Italian, German, Colombian, Ecuadorian, Peruvian, Argentinian, and Brazilian journals and edited books.. She is the co-editor of The Collective and the Public in Latin America. Cultural Identities and Political Order (2000) and Observation and Communication: The Construction of Realities in the Hispanic World (1997) Her current project focuses on the relation between land-use, jurisdiction and territorial rights in eighteenth century Spain and Spanish America.
Carl Landauer, practicing as the international lawyer for Charles Schwab, taught in the history departments of Yale, Stanford, and McGill Universities and, most recently, international legal theory at the University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall). He received a B.A. from Stanford University, a Ph.D. from Yale University, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He writes on the history of modern legal thought, primarily international legal thought and U.S. legal thought. His articles in these areas include: “A Latin American in Paris: Alejandro Alvarez’s Le droit international américain,” Leiden Journal of International Law 19 (2006); “Antinomies of the United Nations: Hans Kelsen and Alf Ross on the Charter,” European Journal of International Law 14 (2003); “From Status to Treaty: Henry Sumner Maine’s International Law,” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 15 (2002); “Deliberating Speed: Totalitarian Anxieties in Post-War Legal Thought,” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 12 (2000); and “Social Science on a Lawyer’s Bookshelf: Willard Hurst’s Law and the Conditions of Freedom in the Nineteenth-Century United States,” Law and History Review 18 (2000). He has been on the editorial advisory board of the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities since 1995.
Dylan Penningroth is Associate Professor of History at Northwestern, where he teaches courses in African American and U.S. history. He received a BA from Yale University (1993) and an MA and PhD from Johns Hopkins (2000). Before coming to Northwestern, he taught at the University of Virginia. His research focuses on African American history, with special interests in the history of slavery and emancipation, African history, and everyday legal experience. His book, The Claims of Kinfolk: African American Property and Community in the Nineteenth-Century South (2003), won the 2004 Avery O. Craven Award of the Organization of American Historians, and as a dissertation won the Allan Nevins Prize of the Society of American Historians. Honors include an OAH Huggins-Quarles Award, a Smithsonian summer fellowship, a Carter G. Woodson Predoctoral Fellowship, and a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship at the Newberry Library. From 2005–2008 he is serving as an OAH Distinguished Lecturer. A member of ASLH since 2002, he has presented papers at the annual meeting and currently serves on the Surrency Prize Committee. He also serves on the 2006 Program Committee for the Southern Historical Association, and the 2008 Program Committee for the Organization of American Historians.
Miranda Spieler is Assistant Professor at the University of Arizona in the
Department of History. She holds an A.B. in History and Literature from Harvard
University and a Ph.D. in History in 2004 from Columbia University, where she worked with Simon Schama, Isser Woloch, and David Armitage. She is an historian of France
and of the French Empire whose work explores the relationship between law and
violence against marginal groups such as enemies of state, convicts, slaves,
and former slaves. She is completing a monograph based on her dissertation, “Empire and Underworld: Guiana in the French legal imagination, c. 1789–c. 1870,” for
Harvard University Press.
Robin Chapman Stacey is the Howard and Frances Keller Endowed Professor of History at the University of Washington. A specialist in medieval Irish and Welsh law, she is the author of several articles and two books: The Road to Judgment: From Custom to Court in Medieval Ireland and Wales (1994), and the forthcoming Dark Speech: The Performance of Law in Early Ireland. Her current book project, tentatively entitled Law as Literature in Medieval Wales, explores a new way of reading the lawbooks of 13th-century Wales: not merely as a repository of native custom, but as a form of political literature and a forum for the discussion of contemporaneously controversial issues, such as divorce, royal succession, princely exactions, and the participation of women in Welsh political life. She has been a member of the editorial board of Law and History Review since 1996, is a Past President of the Celtic Studies Association of North America, and was recently elected a Councillor of the Medieval Academy of America. Her work has been supported by grants from the Guggenheim Foundation and the American Council of Learned Societies, and she just this year received the University of Washington’s Distinguished Teaching Award.
Nominating Committee (4 candidates; top 2 elected)
Margot Canaday is the 2005–2008 Cotsen-Perkins Postdoctoral Fellow in the Society of Fellows at Princeton University. She hold degrees from the University of Iowa (B.A.) and the University of Minnesota (M.A., Ph.D.). Her 2004 dissertation, “The Straight State: Sexuality and American Citizenship, 1900-1969,”won prizes from the Law and Society Association, the Organization of American Historians, and the University of Minnesota. It examines federal regulation of sex and gender non-conformity over the early- to mid-twentieth century to ask how homosexuality came to be a meaningful category for the state during those years. Other work has appeared in the Journal of American History, Law and Social Inquiry, Feminist Review. Her research has been twice funded by fellowships from the Social Science Research Council, and she was the recipient of the AHA’s Littleton-Griswold Grant in Legal History and the OAH’s Galbraith-Merrill Grant in Political History. She has served as a consultant to the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, and has just completed a three-year term on the Governing Board of the AHA’s Committee on Lesbian and Gay History. She is a recent graduate of the Hurst Institute, and has been a member of ASLH since 2003.
Christopher Capozzola is Associate Professor of History and Lister Career Development Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He completed his Ph.D. at Columbia University at 2002, and has held fellowships from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Social Science Research Council, and the Carnegie Scholars Program. His research interests focus on the history of war and citizenship in the modern United States. He is the author of Uncle Sam Wants You: The Politics of Obligation in America’s First World War (forthcoming, 2007); “Life and Limb: Pain, Capitalism, and Citizenship in Industrializing America,” Georgetown Law Journal 93 (2005); and “The Only Badge Needed Is Your Patriotic Fervor: Vigilance, Coercion, and the Law in World War I America,” Journal of American History 88 (2002); and has published in The Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, and Washington Post. He is currently beginning work on Following the Flag, a transnational history of law, military service, and citizenship in the United States and the Philippines in the twentieth century. He is a regular attendee and presenter at ASLH conferences and served on the 2006 Program Committee.
Julie Novkov is Associate Professor of Political Science and the Director of Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of Oregon. From the fall of 2006, she will be Associate Professor of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University at Albany/SUNY. She holds degrees from Harvard-Radcliffe (A.B., 1989), NYU School of Law (J.D., 1992), and the University of Michigan (M.A., 1994; Ph.D., 1998). Her first book, Constituting Workers, Protecting Women: Gender, Law, and Labor in the Progressive Era and the New Deal Years was published in 2001; her second, Racial Constructions: Regulating Interracial Sex and Building the White State in Alabama, 1865-1954, will appear in 2007. She has also authored several articles in books and scholarly journals, including Law and History Review. She is currently working on two co-edited volumes, one on race and US political development and another on race, gender and militarization. Her next major research project will be a political and developmental history of the legal regulation of child labor in the United States. She has been a member of the American Society for Legal History since 2001 and also belongs to the American Society for Legal and Political Philosophy and the Law and Society Association.
David S. Tanenhaus is the James E. Rogers Professor of History and Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, where he teaches both in the Department of History and the William S. Boyd School of Law. He holds degrees from Grinnell College (B.A. in History) and the University of Chicago (M.A. and Ph.D. in History). He has written extensively on children and the law, including Juvenile Justice in the Making (2004) and co-edited, with Margaret K. Rosenheim, Franklin E. Zimring, and Bernardine Dohrn, A Century of Juvenile Justice (2002). He is currently working on the origins and development of federal juvenile justice policy. He has taught courses on American legal and constitutional history, the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, children and society, and introductory surveys of U.S. History. During 2000–2001, he was a Mellon Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Newberry Library. In 2004, the American Society for Legal History appointed him to a five-year term as the Editor of Law and History Review.