Noted Historian and Milwaukee Native Kenneth Stampp Passes Away

peculiar1For the second time in recent weeks, a major Civil War era historian whose work was enormously important for American legal and constitutional history has passed away.  Kenneth Stampp, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of California-Berkeley, died this past Friday at age 96, less than two months after the death of Harvard’s David Herbert Donald.

Stampp’s 1956 work, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Antebellum South, revolutionized the study of American negro slavery, once and for all dismissing suggestions that the institution was fundamentally benign or that African-Americans quietly acquiesced in their slave status.  No book did more to demolish the moonlight and magnolias view of antebellum southern history.

His 1965 work, The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877, destroyed the myth that white Southerners were the primary “victims” of the Reconstruction years.  This work was among the first to link the Reconstruction period to the modern civil rights movement, which was very much underway during the time that Stampp wrote.

Stampp was also the author of numerous other historical works, including And the War Came: The North and the Secession Crisis (1950) and America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink (1990).  Over the course of his long career, he won most of the major awards available to American historians.  He was also instrumental in the training of a generation of Southern and Civil War era historians whose own work built upon the insights of their mentor.  His former students include such historical luminaries as William Freehling, Leon Litwak, James Oakes, Joel Williamson, William Gienapp, John Sproat, Robert Starobin, Robert Abzug, and Reid Mitchell.

What is less well known is that Kenneth Stampp was a native of Milwaukee.  He was born in the Cream City on July 12, 1912, the son of Oscar Stampp, a naprapath (chiropractor), and Eleanor Schmidt Stampp, a homemaker.  While his parents were native-born Americans, his grandparents were all born in Germany or Switzerland, and Stampp grew up in a Protestant neighborhood on the north side of Milwaukee where German was spoken as frequently as English, at least until the onset of U. S. involvement in the First World War.

Stampp attended Washington High School, from which he graduated in 1931 during the depths of the Great Depression.  He began college at Milwaukee State Teachers College (now UWM), but left abruptly in 1933 when one of his professors sought to discourage him from continuing to pursue his goal of becoming a high school history teacher.  (The professor thought that Stampp should pursue a career in elementary education.)

After withdrawing from Milwaukee State, Stampp’s German Methodist father suggested that he enroll in Marquette University instead.  As Stampp later recounted, “My father said, ‘Well, would you like to go to Marquette University?’ I said, ‘I’m not going to that Catholic institution.’ I have to tell you another thing: there was a lot of anti-Catholicism in my family because of their kind of Protestantism. My father had been very anti-Catholic, so I had no trouble saying, “Look, I’m not going to that Catholic college.”

After briefly considering enrolling in Waukesha’s Carroll College, Stampp instead enrolled at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, from which he received his B.A. (1935), M.A. (1936), and Ph.D. (1942) degrees in history.  His first teaching positions were at the University of Arkansas and the University of Maryland.  He joined the faculty of the University of California in 1946 and remained there until his retirement in 1983, except for stints as a visiting professor at Harvard, Oxford, the University of London, and the University of Munich.

A full transcript of Stampp’s 1998 oral autobiography, which includes the story regarding his boyhood in Milwaukee and his decision not to attend Marquette University, can be found online here.

Continue ReadingNoted Historian and Milwaukee Native Kenneth Stampp Passes Away

Judicial Verbosity – It’s Not Easy Being Green

paper-millAn article, “Conciseness in Legal Writing,” by my colleague Lisa Hatlen in the June 2009 issue of Wisconsin Lawyer [at 21] got me thinking.  My conclusion: I am surprised that “green” organizations do not picket at various appellate courthouses in this country, especially in Madison, Wisconsin.  A lot of trees are paying a price for judicial verbosity.

It took Judge Benjamin Cardozo about two and a half pages to write Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928). Less than forty years later, it took Justice Roger Traynor only about one page more to write Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 59 Cal.2d 57, 377 P.2d 897 (1963). Shortly thereafter, here in Wisconsin, it took Justice Bruce Beilfuss only eight pages to write Dippel v. Sciano, 37 Wis.2d 443, 155 N.W.2d 55 (1967). All three are landmark opinions in their respective jurisdictions, with the first two having national status. [All references here are to West reporter pages.] 

Continue ReadingJudicial Verbosity – It’s Not Easy Being Green

The Sotomayor Hearings: Supreme Court Citations to International and Foreign Law

As the Senate hearings addressing the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court proceed through the thickets of legal concerns, one issue that appears to be rather arcane to the average American may be among the most significant. Indeed, it reflects a philosophical dispute that underlies many of the questions at the hearings. Does Judge Sotomayor believe the Supreme Court should be able to cite international and foreign law in its decisions? Let’s be frank: considering some of the esoteric sources cited in many Supreme Court opinions, why would anyone spend more than a moment on what sources the Court will refer to? Yet, this issue has become a focus of significant debate.

Although many members of the Court have cited to international and foreign law at one time or another (including Justices William Rhenquist, Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O’Connor), none have asserted that international and foreign law have any determinative or precedential value in the U.S. legal system. Moreover, citation to international and foreign law in common law cases has rarely been challenged. Rather, the issue is centered on the reference to international and foreign law when the Court is addressing the Constitution. In fact, this issue has served as a cloak for the ongoing debate between the “originalists” (those who assert that the original wording of the Constitution and its context at the time are the sole measure as to the meaning of the Constitution) and the “evolutionists” (those who assert that we must measure the meaning of the Constitution with at least an eye on its contemporary context) over the appropriate way to interpret the Constitution. In effect, the “originalist” argument states that to allow reference to foreign and international law is not merely to align oneself with foreign interpretations that could be inconsistent with the context of American constitutional law (because the sources and therefore the meaning arises in different contexts), but that the use of these foreign sources undermines the very meaning of the Constitution’s drafters and by implication American sovereignty itself. Therein lies the bedrock debate: although international and foreign law is neither mandatory nor precedential, the fear is that these references will be used as tools to pervert the essence of the “originalist” philosophy of constitutional purity. 

Continue ReadingThe Sotomayor Hearings: Supreme Court Citations to International and Foreign Law