|
Final Exam Questions
1994
Remember to read the
Instructions.
|
Why Study Colonial Legal History?
Some years
ago, a young legal historian interested in the colonial
period met with J. Willard Hurst. (Hurst is, of course,
the great giant of American legal history since World
War II; if Hurst has been eclipsed, it is only by
Lawrence Friedman, who was Hurst's student.) The young
historian met with Hurst in order to discuss the young
historian's research and career plans. Hurst told the
young historian--not too subtly--that colonial legal
history was not worth studying. Hurst suggested instead
that if the would-be colonial historian were interested
in the relationship between the present and the American
past, he should limit himself to studying the years
after 1870. Hurst's conversation with the young
historian raises the issue that is the subject of this
question: why study colonial legal history?
You should
approach this question by taking seriously the issue of
whether we should study colonial legal history at all.
(For the purposes of this question, the colonial period
lasts until 1760.) Using material from the readings and
lectures for the colonial period, as well as from other
parts of the course, you should make an argument as to
whether the study of colonial legal history is
worthwhile. Along the way, you should define for
yourself what it means for the study of any history to
be "worthwhile." You should also feel free to use your
essay as an opportunity to argue for either more or less
material devoted to the colonial period in this course.
END OF QUESTION ONE
"Southern Distinctiveness"
Beginning
with the early 19th century, discuss the place of the
American South in the legal history of the United States
as a whole. Consider some of the following questions in
your answers.
In what
ways have the patterns of Southern legal history fit
with those of the rest of the United States? In what
ways have the patterns been different?
What has
been different about the relationship of law to society
in the South as compared with the rest of the United
States?
Have
Southerners had ideas different than those of other
Americans regarding the nature of law or the role of law
in society?
Did the
Civil War mark a fundamental break in the relationship
between Southern legal history and the legal history of
the rest of the United States? Or did the pre-Civil War
patterns of Southern legal history persist beyond the
war? Is there some other point in time at which the
South became either more or less distinct in its legal
history?
Obviously
slavery and race will have to be part of your
discussion, but you should be sure not to limit your
discussion to only these topics. You should also
consider and discuss other aspects of the history of the
South and the United States.
END OF QUESTION TWO
|
|
|
