Monday, July 25, 2005

Supreme House for a Supreme Justice

It occurs to me that we may have John Marshall to thank in part for the current situation our country's judicial system is in, where judges reign supreme. For it was he who gave the courts some real power by establishing the principle of judicial review in cases like Marbury v. Madison. . .

But enough of the history lesson. On Friday I had the opportunity to ride with the post-Revolutionary class to Richmond and see John Marshall's house. He had quite the rags to riches story. The eldest of fifteen children (who all survived to adulthood, a remarkable fact in the eighteenth century), he had little money to his name when he first started out, but quickly became very wealthy, in part thanks to his law practice. He had a large house built in Richmond, and later an office building next door that housed his practice. Though the house was not quite on the same scale as the Lee's, it was bigger than anything I'll likely own this side of heaven. That it was built with brick in the mid-eighteenth century speaks to its wealth. Marshall also had a black house servant, which further suggests his affluence.

Other interesting details about Marshall and family: he was a tall man, about 6' 2". His wife, Mary Ambler, was a slender creature, and only about 4'10". Despite her delicate condition, they had 10 children, and 6 of them survived to adulthood. Marshall didn't marry until age 27. So Kristi, maybe the postponement of marriage is a cyclical trend of some sort. Back then men didn't marry until they had some means to support a family, which explains his late marriage. His wife was 11 years his junior, came from a wealthy family, and apparently had no qualms about marrying at 16. This may seem early, but the subject of my master's thesis, who lived roughly in the same place and time, actually married at 13 or 14. So in comparison 16 seems almost spinsterly.

10 Comments:

Blogger Kristi said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the tendency has always been that men marry later and women marry earlier. And in those days, it was definitely normal for girls to marry in their teens. Might explain why so many died in childbirth and why there were so many widowers! But now women have a lot more options, so it would seem that the age gap between the genders has narrowed considerably. I think guys in any age of history are smart to be established before pursuing a wife, even if that means waiting until the ripe old age of 27! (Just as long as he's only ripe, not rotten!)
BTW, who was your thesis about?

7:14 PM  
Blogger redsoxwinthisyear said...

I'm not up on general trends regarding age of marriage throughout history, but I agree that the impression is women always married younger.

My thesis was on a Methodist plantation lady who lived in 1790s Virginia. I worked with her almost three hundred page diary and some other sources to try and determine what religion did for her, what it meant to her, etc.

1:24 PM  
Blogger Booker said...

27 is now ripe!?! Sigh, I give up :) Just toss me with tomorrow's garbage...

4:42 PM  
Blogger Kristi said...

Why Chad, didn't you get your Master's degree in the History of Marriage?? JK. :-)
I probably sound like I'm obsessed with the subject, but really, I'm not! I just find it an interesting sociological topic.
Derrick, ripe does not equal rotten! I wouldn't start worring till you hit about 30. ;-)

5:14 PM  
Blogger redsoxwinthisyear said...

Derrick, I would worry. Forget what Kristi said. We're both over the hill.

8:10 PM  
Blogger Booker said...

Hahahahhaahaaa. Chad, thanks for the info. I figured that, but was hoping Kristi was more accurate. Sigh, ain't life tough sometimes?

9:22 PM  
Blogger Kristi said...

Don't listen to him, Derrick! Now as for myself, I'll be over the 20's hill in two weeks -- aaaagh!!

9:39 PM  
Blogger Booker said...

Welcome to the oldside!!! Heheheheehe...

6:22 AM  
Blogger Isaac Demme said...

Re: Marriage age in history

I don't know how far back the trend goes, but I do recall that men and women (particularly women) in the Middle Ages often married in their early teens.
My own theory is that the trend is relative to overall life expectancy. If you don't expect to live beyond 40, you probably got married earlier.
Reserving higher education for the celibate (as in the medieval Europe) probably had something to do with it as well.

Re: Marbury vs. Madison

Chad, do you think judicial review was/is a good thing or a bad thing overall?
I am inclined to side with Marshall against the antifederalists, but then I also have a much more optomistic view of our current balance of powers than most conservatives I know.

3:53 PM  
Blogger redsoxwinthisyear said...

Regarding judicial review, I think the concept was probably necessary, while the application of it today would probably have even Marshall turning over in his grave.

9:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


Site Counters