I am having trouble with primary sources support for my paper about the change in the Democratic-Republican's opinion on the establishment of the National Bank, particularly James Madison's citations. Does anyone know which of his papers would support this change in understanding, or any other papers relevant to the thesis?

Constitutional Processes in Texas and CSA

My paper concerns the issue of slavery in the Republic of Texas and the Confederate States Constitutions. I began my research by examining the different constitutions that were at least partially based on the U.S. Constitution, among them: Texas, CSA, West Florida, and Vermont. I narrowed it down to these two as a result of their links to slavery.

I have built my thesis around the fact that slavery was seen as an economic and social necessity and had to be protected. At the same time, the way that slavery was addressed in the constitutions was influenced by both states' rights and abolitionists. I am thinking about expanding my primary research to encompass more about the abolitionist effects on slavery.

The most fascinating thing I have discovered was that Southerners' beliefs in slavery was not absolute, they limited themselves to make it more palatable to others. The slave trade was not reopened which would have been supported if not for foreign or northern abolitionist views.

There are even a few Supreme Court cases that show up in this topic. The slavery in the territories question in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and the inter-state slavery travel question in Strader v. Graham (1850) are solved directly in the CSA Constitution. The Texas Constitution had neither issue but banned slaves from traveling in most cases. Strangely, they banned people of color from living in the country at all! If they did not leave they would be sold into slavery! Let me know what you think of my findings. Thanks and good luck on all of yours...

The Supreme Court and Substantive Due Process

I am doing my paper on the evolution in Supreme Court jurisprudence that allowed for the shift from Hurtado v. California in 1884, wherein it was decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did not encompass the Bill of Rights, to the Taft court of the 1920's, which regularly held that the Fourteenth Amendment did in fact encompass (at least some of) these same rights. In the reading that I've done so far, it seems that the Taft court operated at the zenith of the substantive due process era, and the amount of philosophical hair-splitting that occurred in many of their holdings (and dissents, for that matter) is reflective of this fact. The same court that upheld a billiard parlor's right to ban aliens would also find a state law banning the teaching of German (Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923) to be unreasonable. In another case, Gitlow v. New York (1923), the Taft court upheld a lower-court decision banning the advocacy of violent government overthrow under a state criminal anarchy law, while simultaneously acknowledging for the first time that the First Amendment was indeed protected under the auspices of the Fourteenth.
I see a pattern where the Taft court seemed focused on protecting the individual, and perhaps more importantly, individual private property ownership, against encroachment by the states. To this end, the court would strike down a state law in Arizona established to protect the rights of picketing workers against legal injunction. The case, Truax v. Corrigan (1921), would pit the owner of the business against disruptive, striking employees. Tellingly, the court chose to view the business owner's right to own property as a fundamental one protected under the aegis of the Bill of Rights, and thus, necessarily, under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause as well. While this court may have been no friend to social reform (and indeed, it was not), there were a few anomalies, most notably Nixon v. Herndon (1927), that were not so easily explained. In this case, the court struck down a Texas statute forbidding African-Americans from participating in the Democratic state primary, on the basis that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly forbade such actions by the states.
Now, as to the question of why this evolution occurred, well, that's why I'm writing this. I'm still not really sure.

Women's Rights

I started out with the research question in mind of how did women's legal rights in the US up through the 19th century. That of course was too broad, and then I narrowed it down to how did women's suffrage rights changes which has been redone into how did women gain suffrage rights. For me, this is kind of a hard subject because I know absolutely nothing about it so I'm having to start from scratch with a basic history. I'm not finding many legal cases dealing with it early on but I'm reading a lot about how the suffrage movement came together and changed over time, so I think I'm going to concentrate on that. Does anyone have any suggestions?

How Could Legal Matter Be So Obsessive?

The most difficulty I am having is finding the time to analyze laws (state and court rulings, etc.) pertaining to my research topic. If I had a paper to write on some topic that would not require analysis of legal matters, I would be done by now. However, the truth is that the process of analyzing laws is so interesting that once I start thinking about the decision of a court case, I cannot stop thinking about it. I cannot concentrate in my other studies. I am trying many ways to get rid of my obsession. I am taking many drives to the country side (that is what I do when I try to forget about something or refresh my mind) and doing everything to get over it.

However, that does not seem to be much helpful. Twists and turns of legal matters haunt me wherever I go!! I get tired; I get headache but still cannot forget about it. Does it happen to any of you? What does my symptom mean? Is it an indication that I should pursue law as career or do something with it or is it just mere an obsession that would just go away on its own one day soon? What is it? This is the first legal history class I have ever taken. This seems too quick to reach to a conclusion about what I shoud do with such facination. I will really like to hear your comments / criticisms /whatever your thoughts might be on my craze for law or legal matter. Good luck everyone with your research paper.

Sovereignty - What’s it to ya?

Through my research, I am looking at how Georgians responded to the new concept of sovereignty being located in the people in early Georgia constitutions. I am specifically looking at Georgia’s first two constitutions: 1777 and 1789. First I will compare and contrast the language of the constitutions as it pertains to the idea of the peoples’ sovereignty; second I will compare and contrast the reaction of “the people” to these documents that delineated a new political role for the people.

As for sources, unfortunately much of the primary sources I was hoping to find are located in Savannah at the Georgia Historical Society. However, I have found a few primary sources at the Georgia State University Special Collections department (Library South 8th floor); although they mostly pertain to the minutia of the Revolutionary war in the south, they give an overall sense of the mood of the people in Georgia towards the idea of a country independent of Great Britain. For example, the letters contained in the memoirs of General William Moultrie reveal that the desertion rate was high in the revolutionary regiments and the correspondences between military leaders concerned the issues of mutiny, desertion, and enslaved peoples defecting to the British. This suggests that “the people” whom American revolutionary political leaders were attempting to ascribe sovereignty to - and thus a level of power - were either unaware of this intention or did not believe any transfer of power would take place if independence was won.

Additionally, I found a letter written to the Continental Congress explaining that the delegates from Georgia would not be attending because of lack of the peoples’ participation in electing delegates, only a few parishes (out of twelve) elected delegates. This also suggests a limited interest and/or belief in the concept of “the peoples’ sovereignty” and the necessity of their participation.

I have a lot left to do and will continue to add to this post. Please feel free to ask questions, make criticisms, comments and/or suggestions.

Abortion Laws

I am doing my research paper over abortion laws prior to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. In skimming over some of my resources, I have had a couple of questions come to mind. First, the Roe v. Wade decision was based on the constitutional right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment. There were several laws prior to the Roe decision that were in place making abortion illegal and I wonder what legal backing these laws had. Meaning if abortion was made legal based on the Due Process clause of the 14^th Amendment, what did previous lawmakers use to justify that abortion was in fact illegal? Furthermore, I think the topic of separation of church and state must be brought into the equation. By 1973 was there more of a shift in attitudes for more separation of church and state? If so, what caused it? These are just a few of the things I am questioning before I get into the in-depth analysis of the materials I have.

The Supension of Habeas Corpus

My final research topic is on whether President Lincoln had the constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus. my argument will be that President Lincoln had the power to suspend habeas corpus during war time as commander and chief of the military the suspension of habeas corpus is under article IV of the Constitution and has no clear indication of what branch of the government it is granted to. My question; question is whether people believe the President Lincoln had the power to suspend habeas corpus through his war time powers as the commander and chief or was he in direct violation of the Constitution.

Women's Most Personal Matter Is Still In The Hands of Lawmakers

My research topic is the historical abortion laws of the twentieth century America. I am very much disturbed emotionally about the pain and suffering women went through for almost a century without legal right to abortion. Abortion was made illegal at the end of the nineteenth century. My research has proven that since then one million women died every year from the complications caused by abortions performed by non-professionals.

Many changes took place in all aspects of American society since the beginning of the twentieth century. Federal and state governments had taken many reform initiatives. The progressive movement was on the rise. Civil rights movement was at work in full force. The sad fact is all these initiatives were taken by male government and non-government activists; however, no man whether from political or social arena took the initiative to fight for women’s abortion right which was extremely critical for their health.

It was women who had begun the formal resistant and it was women who earn their abortion right by expanding their merits in all aspects of society. Women cried, begged and suffered but no one heard. However, when they emerged as a dominant majority, their voice was heard. Politicians needed women’s support, so many came to their aid. As a result of their vigorous struggle, women can choose abortion during the first tri-master now. But laws are still controlling abortion by restricting it. Women’s most personal matter is in the hands of lawmakers even at this post modern era. The threat to abortion right still exists today. It may be taken again; women must keep their eyes open and continue to speak up.

Final Research Paper Post on the Cabinet's Role in Policy

For my final research paper, I am focusing on how the presidency changed from Washington to Lincoln, and more precisely the cabinet's role in policies, as well as how the "tide" of legislation changed. One scope in particular that I found interesting was in reference to national banks. Some members of Washington's cabinet, mainly Hamilton were pushing him to pass the Bank Bill, while he himself was skeptical until the very end and eventually signed it into law. However in Lincoln's case, when the National Bank Act of 1863 came about, he was consulted by his Sec. of Treasury, Salmon Chase, concerning the passage of the bill, since Lincoln was quite knowledgable in banking and was in favor of credit. I found it interesting how in both cases, legislation was passed which boosted the American monetary system, however they took drastically different paths in getting there.

I was wondering if any of you have also come across information in which you had an idea of the outcome, but were surprised in perhaps the composition of the facts or what was maybe "behind the scenes."