Emeritus () (plural emeriti, abbreviation emer.) is a post-positive adjective that is used to designate a retired professor, bishop, or other professional or as a title. The female equivalent emerita () is also sometimes used.

The term is used when a person of importance in a given profession retires and/or hands over the position, so that his former rank can still be used in his title. This is particularly useful when establishing the authority of a person who might comment, lecture or write on a particular subject. The word is typically used as a postpositional adjective but can also be used as a preposition adjective. It is frequently capitalized when it forms part of a title. The word originated in the mid-18th century from Latin as the past participle of emereri meaning to "earn one's discharge by service". Emereri itself is a compound of the prefix e- (a variant of ex-) meaning "out of or from" and merēre meaning "earn". Emeritus does not necessarily indicate that the person is retired from all the duties of her/his previous positions; he or she may continue to exercise some of them.

See also

Professors emeriti in the United States

President pro tempore emeritus of the United States Senate

List of emeritus general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Diocesan bishop (bishop emeritus in the Catholic Church)

References

Emeritus, New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd edition), 2005.

Emeritus, Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Online), 2006.

Category:Social titles Category:Academia Category:Latin adjectives in current use Category:Academic honours

Name	Thomas Szasz
Caption	Thomas Szasz
Birth date	April 15, 1920
Birth place	Budapest, Kingdom of Hungary
Residence	|citizenship =
Nationality	Hungarian
Field	Psychiatry
Work institutions	State University of New York Upstate Medical University
Author abbrev bot	|author_abbrev_zoo =
Religion	|footnotes = |signature =

Thomas Stephen Szasz (pronounced Saas) (born April 15, 1920) is a psychiatrist and academic. Since 1990 he has been Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York Health Science Center in Syracuse, New York. He is a well-known social critic of the moral and scientific foundations of psychiatry, and of the social control aims of medicine in modern society, as well as of scientism. He is well known for his books The Myth of Mental Illness (1960) and The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement (1970), which set out some of the arguments with which he is most associated.

His views on special treatment follow from classical liberal roots which are based on the principles that each person has the right to bodily and mental self-ownership and the right to be free from violence from others, although he criticized the "Free World" as well as the Communist states for its use of psychiatry and "drogophobia". He believes that suicide, the practice of medicine, use and sale of drugs and sexual relations should be private, contractual, and outside of state jurisdiction.

In 1973, the American Humanist Association named him Humanist of the Year.

Life

Thomas Szasz was born to Julius and Lily Szasz on April 15, 1920, in Budapest, Hungary. In 1938 Szasz moved to the United States, where he attended the University of Cincinnati for his Bachelor of Arts in medicine, and received his medical degree from the same university in 1944. Szasz completed his residency requirement at the Cincinnati General Hospital, then worked at the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis from 1951–1956, and then for the next five years was a member of its staff—taking twenty-four months out for active duty with the U.S. Navy.

In 1962 Szasz received a tenured position in medicine at the State University of New York. Szasz had first joined SUNY in 1956.

Szasz's views of psychiatry were influenced by the writings of Frigyes Karinthy.

The Rise of Szasz's arguments

Szasz first presented his attack on mental illness as a legal term in 1958 in the Columbia Law Review. In this article he argued that mental illness was no more a fact bearing on a suspect's guilt than is possession by the devil.

In 1961 Szasz gave testimony before a United States Senate committee in which he argued that the use of mental hospitals to incarcerate people defined as insane violated the general assumptions of patient and doctor relationships and turned the doctor into a warden and a keeper of a prison.

Szasz's main arguments

Szasz is a critic of the influence of modern medicine on society, which he considers to be the secularisation of religion's hold on humankind. Criticizing scientism, he targets in particular psychiatry, underscoring its campaigns against masturbation at the end of the 19th century, its use of medical imagery and language to describe misbehavior, its reliance on involuntary mental hospitalization to protect society, or the use of lobotomy and other interventions to treat psychosis. To sum up his description of the political influence of medicine in modern societies imbued by faith in science, he declared:

Since theocracy is the rule of God or its priests, and democracy the rule of the people or of the majority, pharmacracy is therefore the rule of medicine or of doctors.

Szasz consistently pays attention to the power of language in the establishment and maintenance of the social order, both in small interpersonal as well as wider socio-political spheres:

"The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life itself. In the typical Western two men fight desperately for the possession of a gun that has been thrown to the ground: whoever reaches the weapon first shoots and lives; his adversary is shot and dies. In ordinary life, the struggle is not for guns but for words; whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim. For example, in the family, husband and wife, mother and child do not get along; who defines whom as troublesome or mentally sick?...[the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other; [the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined is subjugated and may be killed."

His main arguments can be summarised as follows:

The myth of mental illness: "Mental illness" is an expression, a metaphor that describes an offending, disturbing, shocking, or vexing conduct, action, or pattern of behavior, such as schizophrenia, as an "illness" or "disease". Szasz wrote: "If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic." Psychiatry actively obscures the difference between (mis)behavior and disease, in its quest to help or harm parties to conflicts. By calling certain people "diseased", psychiatry attempts to deny them responsibility as moral agents, in order to better control them.

People who are said (by themselves or others) to "have" a mental illness can only have, at best, a "fake disease." Diagnoses of "mental illness" or "mental disorder" (the latter expression called by Szasz a "weasel term" for mental illness) are passed off as "scientific categories" but they remain merely judgments (judgments of disdain) to support certain uses of power by psychiatric authorities. In that line of thinking, schizophrenia is not the name of a disease entity but a judgment of extreme psychiatric and social reprobation. Szasz calls schizophrenia "the sacred symbol of psychiatry" because those so labeled have long provided and continue to provide justification for psychiatric theories, treatments, abuses, and reforms. The figure of the psychotic or schizophrenic person to psychiatric experts and authorities, according to Szasz, is analogous with the figure of the heretic or blasphemer to theological experts and authorities. According to Szasz, to understand the metaphorical nature of the term "disease" in psychiatry, one must first understand its literal meaning in the rest of medicine. To be a true disease, the entity must first, somehow be capable of being approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion. Second, to be confirmed as a disease, a condition must demonstrate pathology at the cellular or molecular level.

A genuine disease must also be found on the autopsy table (not merely in the living person) and meet pathological definition instead of being voted into existence by members of the American Psychiatric Association. "Mental illnesses" are really problems in living. They are often "like a" disease, argues Szasz, which makes the medical metaphor understandable, but in no way validates it as an accurate description or explanation. Psychiatry is a pseudo-science that parodies medicine by using medical sounding words invented especially over the last 100 years. To be clear, heart break and heart attack, or spring fever and typhoid fever belong to two completely different logical categories, and treating one as the other constitutes a category error, that is, a myth. Psychiatrists are the successors of "soul doctors", priests who dealt and deal with the spiritual conundrums, dilemmas, and vexations — the "problems in living" — that have troubled people forever.

Psychiatry's main methods are those of conversation or rhetoric, repression, and religion. To the extent that psychiatry presents these problems as "medical diseases," its methods as "medical treatments," and its clients — especially involuntary — as medically ill patients, it embodies a lie and therefore constitutes a fundamental threat to freedom and dignity. Psychiatry, supported by the State through various Mental Health Acts, has become a modern secular state religion according to Thomas Szasz. It is a vastly elaborate social control system, using both brute force and subtle indoctrination, which disguises itself under the claims of scientificity. The notion that biological psychiatry is a real science or a genuine branch of medicine has been challenged by other critics as well, such as Michel Foucault in Madness and Civilization (1961), and Erving Goffman in Asylums (1961).

Separation of psychiatry and the state: State government by enforcing the use of shock therapy has abused Psychiatry with impunity. If we accept that "mental illness" is a euphemism for behaviors that are disapproved of, then the state has no right to force psychiatric "treatment" on these individuals. Similarly, the state should not be able to interfere in mental health practices between consenting adults (for example, by legally controlling the supply of psychotropic drugs or psychiatric medication). The medicalization of government produces a "therapeutic state," designating someone as "insane" or as a "drug addict".

In Ceremonial Chemistry (1973), he argued that the same persecution which has targeted witches, Jews, Gypsies or homosexuals now targets "drug addicts" and "insane" people. Szasz argued that all these categories of people were taken as scapegoats of the community in ritual ceremonies. To underscore this continuation of religion through medicine, he even takes as example obesity: instead of concentrating on junk food (ill-nutrition), physicians denounced hypernutrition. According to Szasz, despite their scientific appearance, the diets imposed were a moral substitute to the former fasts, and the social injunction not to be overweight is to be considered as a moral order, not as a scientific advice as it claims to be. As with those thought bad (insane people), those who took the wrong drugs (drug-addicts), medicine created a category for those who had the wrong weight (obeses).

Szasz argued that psychiatrics were created in the 17th century to study and control those who erred from the medical norms of social behavior; a new specialization, drogophobia, was created in the 20th century to study and control those who erred from the medical norms of drug consumption; and then, in the 1960s, another specialization, bariatrics, was created to deal with those who erred from the medical norms concerning the weight which the body should have. Thus, he underscores that in 1970, the American Society of Bariatic Physicians (from the Greek baros, weight) had 30 members, and already 450 two years later.

Presumption of competence: Just as legal systems work on the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty, individuals accused of crimes should not be presumed incompetent simply because a doctor or psychiatrist labels them as such. Mental incompetence should be assessed like any other form of incompetence, i.e., by purely legal and judicial means with the right of representation and appeal by the accused.

Death control: In an analogy to birth control, Szasz argues that individuals should be able to choose when to die without interference from medicine or the state, just as they are able to choose when to conceive without outside interference. He considers suicide to be among the most fundamental rights, but he opposes state-sanctioned euthanasia. In his 2006 book about Virginia Woolf he stated that she put an end to her life by a conscious and deliberate act, her suicide being an expression of her freedom of choice.

Abolition of the insanity defense: Szasz believes that testimony about the mental competence of a defendant should not be admissible in trials. Psychiatrists testifying about the mental state of an accused person's mind have about as much business as a priest testifying about the religious state of a person's soul in our courts. Insanity was a legal tactic invented to circumvent the punishments of the Church, which, at the time included confiscation of the property of those who committed suicide, which often left widows and orphans destitute. Only an insane person would do such a thing to his widow and children, it was successfully argued. Legal mercy masquerading as medicine, said Szasz.

Abolition of involuntary hospitalization: No one should be deprived of liberty unless he is found guilty of a criminal offense. Depriving a person of liberty for what is said to be his own good is immoral. Just as a person suffering from terminal cancer may refuse treatment, so should a person be able to refuse psychiatric treatment.

Our right to drugs: Drug addiction is not a "disease" to be cured through legal drugs (Methadone instead of heroin; which forgets that heroin was created in the first place to be a substitute to morphine, which in turn was created as a substitute to opium), but a social habit. Szasz also argues in favor of a drugs free-market. He criticized the war on drugs, arguing that using drugs was in fact a victimless crime. Prohibition itself constituted the crime. He shows how the war on drugs leads states to do things that would have never been considered half a century before, such as prohibiting a person from ingesting certain substances or interfering in other countries to impede the production of certain plants (e.g. coca eradication plans, or the campaigns against opium; both are traditional plants opposed by the Western world). Although Szasz is skeptical about the merits of psychotropic medications, he favors the repeal of drug prohibition.

"Because we have a free market in food, we can buy all the bacon, eggs, and ice cream we want and can afford. If we had a free market in drugs, we could similarly buy all the barbiturates, chloral hydrate, and morphine we want and could afford." Szasz argued that the prohibition and other legal restrictions on drugs are enforced not because of their lethality, but in a ritualistic aim (he quotes Mary Douglas's studies of rituals). He also recalls that pharmakos, the Greek root of pharmacology, originally meant "scapegoat". Szasz dubbed pharmacology "pharmacomythology" because of its inclusion of social practices in its studies, in particular through the inclusion of the category of "addictiveness" in its programs. "Addictiveness" is a social category, argued Szasz, and the use of drugs should be apprehended as a social ritual rather than exclusively as the act of ingesting a chemical substance. There are many ways of ingesting a chemical substance, or drug (which comes from pharmakos), just as there are many different cultural ways of eating or drinking. Thus, some cultures prohibit certain types of substances, which they call "taboo", while they make use of others in various types of ceremonies.

Szasz has been wrongly associated with the anti-psychiatry movement of the 1960s and 1970s. He is not opposed to the practice of psychiatry if it is non-coercive. He maintains that psychiatry should be a contractual service between consenting adults with no state involvement. In a 2006 documentary film called released on DVD Szasz stated that involuntary mental hospitalization is a crime against humanity. Szasz also believes that, if unopposed, involuntary hospitalization will expand into "pharmacratic" dictatorship.

Relationship to Citizens Commission on Human Rights

In 1969, Szasz and the Church of Scientology co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) with the aim of helping to "clean up" the field of human rights abuses. Szasz remains on CCHR's Board of Advisors as Founding Commissioner, and continues to provide content for the CCHR. In the keynote address at the 25th anniversary of CCHR, Szasz stated: "We should all honor CCHR because it is really the organization that for the first time in human history has organized a politically, socially, internationally significant voice to combat psychiatry. This has never been done in human history before." Szasz, himself, does not have any membership or involvement in Scientology. In 2003, the following statement, authorized by Szasz, was posted to the official Szasz web site by its owner, Jeffrey Schaler, explaining Szasz's relationship to CCHR:

"Dr. Szasz co-founded CCHR in the same spirit as he had co-founded — with sociologist Erving Goffman and law professor George Alexander — The American Association for the Abolition of Involuntary Mental Hospitalization... Scientologists have joined Szasz's battle against institutional psychiatry. Dr. Szasz welcomes the support of Jews, Christians, Muslims, and any other religious or atheist group committed to the struggle against the Therapeutic State. Sharing this battle does not mean that Dr. Szasz supports the unrelated principles and causes of any religious or non-religious organization. This is explicit and implicit in Dr. Szasz's work. Everyone and anyone is welcome to join in the struggle for individual liberty and personal responsibility — especially as these values are threatened by psychiatric ideas and interventions."

Criticism

Szasz's critics maintain that, contrary to his views, such illnesses are now regularly "approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion." The list of groups that reject his opinion that mental illness is a myth include the American Medical Association (AMA), American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).

The effectiveness of medication has been used as an argument against Szasz’s idea that depression is a myth. In a debate with Szasz, Donald F. Klein, M.D explained:

“It is that elementary fact, that the antidepressants do little to normals, and are tremendously effective in the clinically depressed person, that shows us that this is an illness” 

But as the New England Journal of Medicine reported on January 17, 2008, in published trials, about 60 percent of people taking the drugs report significant relief from depression, compared with roughly 40 percent of those on placebo pills. But when the less positive, unpublished trials are included, the advantage shrinks: the drugs outperform placebos, but perhaps only by a modest margin and for a brief period.

In the same debate Frederick K. Goodwin, M.D asserts :

"The concept of disease in medicine really means a cluster of symptoms that people can agree about, and in the case of depression we agree 80% of the time. It is a cluster of symptoms that predicts something.”  and Ménière's disease (a disorder of the inner ear) are similarly defined."

There is also the criticism that many physical diseases were identified and even treated with at least some success decades, centuries, or millennia before their etiology was accurately identified. Diabetes is one notable example. In the eyes of Szasz's critics, such historical facts tend to undermine his contention that mental illnesses must be "fake diseases" because their etiology in the brain is not well understood.

See also

Antipsychiatry

Libertarian perspectives on suicide

Writings by Szasz

Bibliography of Szasz's writings.

Books

(First published in 1976 under the name: Karl Kraus and the Soul-Doctors: A Pioneer Critic and His Criticism of Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis. — Louisiana State University Press, 1976.)

Secondary literature

Vatz, R. E. (2006). Rhetoric and psychiatry: A Szaszian perspective on a political case study. Current Psychology, 25'''', 173.

Schaler, Jeffrey A. (Editor). 2004. Szasz Under Fire: The Psychiatric Abolitionist Faces His Critics. Chicago: Open Court Publishers.

Powell, Jim, 2000. The Triumph of Liberty: A 2,000 Year History Told Through the Lives of Freedom's Greatest Champions. Free Press.

Vatz, R. E., and Weinberg, L. S., eds., 1983. Thomas Szasz: Primary Values and Major Contentions. Prometheus Books.

Vatz, R. E. (1973). The myth of the rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 6, 154_161.

References

External links

The Szasz Site published and owned by Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D.

The Web Site of Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D.

The Foucault Tribunal. April 30 — Mai 3, 1998 in the Volksbuehne Theatre in Berlin, Germany (video of the Foucault Tribunal on foucault.de)

"Diseases are malfunctions of the human body, of the heart, the liver , the kidney, the brain." Audio on youtube

The Thomas S. Szasz Cybercenter for Liberty and Responsibility

The Case Against Psychiatric Coercion, by Thomas S. Szasz

Mental Disorders are not Diseases, by Thomas S. Szasz

Interview: Curing the Therapeutic State

Liberty and the Practice of Psychotherapy: An Interview with Thomas Szasz (Psychotherapy.net)

Thomas Szasz Quotes

Thomas Szasz's OISM Honorary Membership Website

Thomas Szasz's Manifesto

RealPlayer Video (or chose audio only) of Thomas Szasz

YouTube Szasz interview 26:44 audio (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)

Thomas Szasz "Psychiatry as an Arm of the State"; Lew Rockwell show podcast, Nov 19, 2008

A Conversation with Thomas Szasz, University of Birmingham, October 2007: Preview Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Category:1920 births Category:Living people Category:American academics Category:American libertarians Category:American humanists Category:American psychiatrists Category:State University of New York faculty Category:Hungarian immigrants to the United States Category:Hungarian psychiatrists Category:People from Syracuse, New York Category:American people of Hungarian descent Category:American Jews Category:Scientology and psychiatry

Richard Edgar Pipes (born July 11, 1923) is an American academic who specializes in Russian history, particularly with respect to the history of the Soviet Union. During the Cold War era he headed Team B, a team of analysts organized by the Central Intelligence Agency who analyzed the strategic capacities and goals of the Soviet military and political leadership.

Background

Richard Pipes was born in Cieszyn, Poland to an assimilated Jewish family (whose name had originally been spelled "Piepes"). His father was a businessman. By Pipes's own account, during his childhood and youth, he never thought about the Soviet Union; the major cultural influences on him were Polish and German cultures. The Pipes family fled occupied Poland in October 1939 and arrived in the United States in July 1940, after seven months passing through Fascist Italy. Pipes became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1943 while serving in the United States Army Air Corps. He was educated at Muskingum College, Cornell University and Harvard. He married Irene Eugenia Roth in 1946, and had two children with her. His son Daniel Pipes is a scholar of Middle Eastern affairs.

Career

Pipes taught at Harvard University from 1950 until his retirement in 1996. He was the director of Harvard's Russian Research Center from 1968 to 1973 and is now Baird Professor Emeritus of History at Harvard University. He acted as senior consultant at the Stanford Research Institute from 1973 to 1978. During the 1970s, he was an advisor to Washington Senator Henry M. Jackson. In 1981 and 1982 he served as a member of the National Security Council, holding the post of Director of East European and Soviet Affairs under President Ronald Reagan. Pipes was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger from 1977 until 1992 and belongs to the Council of Foreign Relations. In the 1970s, Pipes was a leading critic of détente, which he described as "inspired by intellectual indolence and based on ignorance of one's antagonist and therefore inherently inept".

Team B

Pipes was head of the 1976 Team B, composed of civilian experts and retired military officers and agreed to by then CIA director George H W Bush at the urging of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) as a competitive analysis exercise. and misinterpreted Soviet strategic intentions.

One CIA employee called it "a kangaroo court of outside critics all picked from one point of view." Pipes himself called Team B's evidence "soft."

Pipes himself emphasizes the other aspects of Team B's conclusions: "We dealt with one problem only: What is the Soviet strategy for nuclear weapons? Team B was appointed to look at the evidence and to see if we could conclude that the actual Soviet strategy is different from ours, i.e. the strategy of Mutual Assured Destrucion (MAD). It has now been demonstrated totally that it was", he said, using the example of documents in Polish archives that show the Soviets planning to use nuclear weapons in the event of war. For example, in a Commentary article, he argued that the A team was subject to 'mirror-imaging' (a common problem in intelligence research and analysis) [thinking that the other side necessarily thought the same as your side]; in particular he argued that Team B showed Soviet development of high-yield, accurate MIRV'ed warheads for ICBMs was inconsistent with city-hostage principles of MAD, implying Soviet first-strike plans.

Other members of Team B included Daniel O. Graham and Thomas Wolfe. Its advisors included future Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Paul Nitze.

Writings on Russian history

Pipes has written many books on Russian history, including Russia under the Old Regime (1974), The Russian Revolution (1990) and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime (1994), and has been a frequent and prominent interviewee in the press on the matters of Soviet history and foreign affairs. His writings also appear in Commentary, The New York Times and The Times Literary Supplement". At Harvard, he has taught large courses on Imperial Russia as well as the Russian Revolution and guided over 80 graduate students to their PhD's.

Pipes is known for arguing that the origins of the Soviet Union can be traced to the separate path taken by 15th century Muscovy in a Russian version of the Sonderweg thesis. In Pipes' opinion, Muscovy differed from every state in Europe in that it had no concept of private property, and that everything was regarded as the property of the Grand Duke/Tsar. In Pipes' view, this separate path undertaken by Russia possibly under Mongol influence ensured that Russia would be an autocratic state with values fundamentally dissimilar from those of Western civilization. Pipes has argued that this "patrimonialism" of Imperial Russia started to break down when Russian leaders attempted to modernize in the 19th century without seeking however to change the basic "patrimonial" structure of Russian society. In Pipes's opinion, this separate course undertaken by Russia over the centuries made Russia uniquely open to a communist hijacking in 1917. Pipes has strongly criticized the values of the radical intelligentsia of late Imperial Russia for what he sees as their fanaticism and inability to accept reality. The Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has denounced Pipes' work as "the Polish version of Russian history". Pipes, in turn, has accused Solzhenitsyn of being an anti-Semitic Russian ultra-nationalist, who seeks to blame the ills of Communism on the Jews rather than to admit to the Russian roots of the Soviet Union. Writing of Solzhenitsyn's novel, August 1914 in the New York Times on November 13, 1985, Pipes commented: "Every culture has its own brand of anti-Semitism. In Solzhenitsyn's case, it's not racial. It has nothing to do with blood. He's certainly not a racist; the question is fundamentally religious and cultural. He bears some resemblance to Dostoevsky, who was a fervent Christian and patriot and a rabid anti-Semite. Solzhenitsyn is unquestionably in the grip of the Russian extreme right's view of the Revolution, which is that it was the doing of the Jews".

Pipes has stressed that the Soviet Union was an expansionist, totalitarian state bent on world conquest. He is also notable for the thesis that, contrary to many traditional histories of the USSR at the time, the "October Revolution" was, rather than a popular general uprising, a coup foisted upon the majority of the Russian population (and national minorities) by a tiny segment of the population driven by a select group of intellectuals who subsequently established a one-party dictatorship which was intolerant and repressive from the start, rather than having deviated from an initially benign course. In Pipes's view, the Russian Revolution of November 1917 was a total disaster, as it allowed the small section of the fanatical intelligentsia to carry out policies that were completely unrealistic.

Pipes is a leading advocate of the totalitarianian school that sees Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as being fundamentally similar regimes pursuing similar policies that, in fact, collaborated in a few essential respects. Citing the work of such historians as James Gregor, Henry Ashby Turner, Renzo De Felice, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Ernst Nolte and David Schoenbaum together with the work of Hermann Rauschning, Pipes, in a chapter in his book Russia Under The Bolshevik Regime, argued that there is no such thing as generic fascism, and that the Third Reich, the Soviet Union and Fascist Italy were all totalitarian regimes united by their antipathy to democracy.

Richard Pipes, in a supposedly "off-the-record" interview, told Reuters in March 1981 that "Soviet leaders would have to choose between peacefully changing their Communist system in the direction followed by the West or going to war. There is no other alternative and it could go either way… Détente is dead." Pipes also stated in the interview that Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher of West Germany was susceptible to pressure from the Soviets. It was learned independently that Pipes was the official who spoke to Reuters. This potentially jeopardized Pipes's job. The White House and the "incensed" State Department issued statements repudiating Pipes's statements. But with President Reagan's backing, Pipes stayed on two years, after which he returned to Harvard because his leave of absence had expired. But he turned out to have been right that the USSR desperately needed reforms which were initiated by M. Gorbachev four years after the above interview.

In 1992, Pipes served as an expert witness in the Russian Constitutional Court's trial of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Controversy

The writings of Richard Pipes have provoked controversy in the scholarly community, for example in the Russian Review.

Criticism of Pipes's interpretation of the events of 1917 has come mostly from the "revisionist" Soviet historians, who, under the influence of the French "Annales" school, since the 1970 s have tended to center their interpretation of the Russian Revolution on social movements from below in preference to parties and their leaders and interpreted political movements as responding to pressures from below rather them directing them. Amongst members of this school, Lynne Viola and Sheila Fitzpatrick, claim that Pipes has focused too narrowly on intellectuals as causal agents. Peter Kenez (Pipes's one-time graduate student at Harvard) argued that Pipes has approached Soviet History as a prosecutor, intent solely on proving the "defendant"'s criminal intent to the exclusion of anything else. Put into a nutshell, what revisionists and the Left strictu sensu argue is that Pipes seems intent on fighting yesterday's battles again and again, that his historical writing is concerned with perpetuating the unidimensional caricature of the Soviet Union as the "evil empire" to the exclusion of everything else, in an attempt "to put the clock back a few decades to the times when Cold War demonology was the norm".

Pipes, in his turn - specially in the wake of triumphalist mood that followed the demise of the USSR - has charged the revisionists in general with skewing their research - by means mainly of statistics "as unreadable as they were irrelevant for the understanding of the subject" to provide intellectual cover for Soviet terror and acting as simpletons and /or Communist dupes and that their attempt at "History from below" only obfuscated the fact that "Soviet citizens were the helpless victims of a totalitarian regime driven primarily by a lust for power".

In a review of a Pipes' New York Times piece on Dmitri Volkogonov's biography of Leon Trotsky, in which Pipes argued that "Trotsky frequently said and wrote that Stalin's regime had to be overthrown and Stalin himself assassinated", the leftist historian and activist David North, after arguing that Pipes' assertion on Trotsky was "a blatant and odious lie", taken from Stalinist slanders on Trotsky, wrote that Pipes was interested in fostering the Stalinist notion of a continuity between Lenin and Stalinism as long as that nurtured his own agenda: "to demonstrate that all the crimes committed by the Stalinist regime flowed necessarily and inexorably from the October Revolution itself". As long as that served his "own right-wing ideological obsessions", Pipes was ready to treat Stalinist falsifications as fact.

Pipes has been praised in English-speaking press for his talent for synthesis and clarity of style. The Newsweek reviewer of Pipes's Russian Revolution called it a "brilliantly focused portrait." The Oxford scholar, Ronald Hingley, wrote in the New York Times Book Review: "No volume known to me even begins to cater adequately to those who want to discover what really happened to Russia." In the Washington Post Book World this book was praised as "Monumental and detailed... by one of America's great historians." The book has been translated into several languages, including Russian (two editions).

Honors

Pipes has an extensive list of honors, including: Honorary Consul of the Republic of Georgia, Foreign Member of the Polish Academy of Learning (PAU), Commander's Cross of Merit of the Republic of Poland, Honorary DHL at Adelphi College, Honorary LLD at Muskingum College, Doctor Honoris Causa from the University of Silesia, Szczecin University, and the University of Warsaw. Honorary Doctor of Political Science from the Tbilisi (Georgia) School of Political Studies. Annual Spring Lecturer of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Institute, Walter Channing Cabot Fellow of Harvard University, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Guggenheim Fellow (twice), Fellow of the American Council of Learned Societies and recipient of the George Louis Beer Prize of the American Historical Association. He received one of the 2007 National Humanities Medals and in 2009 he was awarded both the Truman-Reagan Medal of Freedom by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and the Brigham-Kanner Prize by the William & Mary Law School. In 2010, Pipes received the medal "Bene Merito" by the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Works

The Formation of the Soviet Union, Communism and Nationalism, 1917-1923 (1954)

The Russian Intelligentsia (1961)

Social Democracy and the St. Petersburg Labor Movement, 1885-1897 (1963)

Struve, Liberal on the Left (1970)

Russia Under the Old Regime (1974)

Soviet Strategy in Europe (1976)

Struve, Liberal on the Right, 1905-1944 (1980)

U.S.-Soviet Relations in the Era of Détente: a Tragedy of Errors (1981)

Survival is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future (1984)

Russia Observed: Collected Essays on Russian and Soviet History (1989)

The Russian Revolution (1990)

Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime: 1919-1924 (1993)

Communism, the Vanished Specter (1994)

A Concise History of the Russian Revolution (1995)

The Three "Whys" of the Russian Revolution (1995)

The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive (1996) - Editor

Property and Freedom (1999)

Communism: A History (2001)

Vixi: Memoirs of a Non-Belonger (2003)

The Degaev Affair: Terror and Treason in Tsarist Russia (2003)

Russian Conservatism and Its Critics (2006)

The Trial of Vera Z. (2010)

'' Scattered Thoughts (2010)

Notes

Further reading

Bogle, Lori Lyn "Pipes, Richard" pages 922-923 from The Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing edited by Kelly Boyd, Volume 2, London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishing, 1999.

Kenez, Peter "The Prosecution of Soviet History: A Critique of Richard Pipes' The Russian Revolution" pages 345-351 from Russian Review, Volume 50, 1991.

Malia, Martin Edward "The Hunt for the True October" pages 21–28 from Commentary, Volume 92, 1991.

Poe, Marshall, "The Dissident", Azure (Spring 2008).

Somin, Ilya "Riddles, Mysteries, and Enigmas: Unanswered Questions of Communism's Collapse" pages 84–88 from Policy Review, Volume 70, 1994.

Stent, Angela "Review of U.S-Soviet Relations in the Era of Détente" pages 91–92 from Russian Review, Volume 41, 1982.

Szeftel, Marc "Two Negative Apraisals of Russian Pre-Revolutionary Development" pages 74–87 from Canadian-American Slavic Studies, 1980.

Category:American historians Category:American Jews Category:Polish historians Category:Cornell University alumni Category:Muskingum University alumni Category:Harvard University alumni Category:Harvard University faculty Category:Historians of communism Category:Polish immigrants to the United States Category:Jewish American historians Category:Jewish American writers Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States Category:Polish Jews Category:American people of Polish-Jewish descent Category:1923 births Category:Living people Category:Historians of Russia Category:American anti-communists Category:People from Cieszyn Category:United States National Security Council staffers Category:Stalinism era scholars and writers Category:United States Army Air Forces soldiers Category:American military personnel of World War II Category:National Humanities Medal recipients

Name	John Jay
Caption	Portrait of John Jay painted by Gilbert Stuart
Office	1st Chief Justice of the United States
Termstart	September 26, 1789
Termend	June 29, 1795
Nominator	George Washington
Successor	John Rutledge
Order2	2nd Governor of New York
Term start2	July 1, 1795
Term end2	June 30, 1801
Lieutenant2	Stephen Van Rensselaer
Predecessor2	George Clinton
Successor2	George Clinton
Office3	2nd United States Secretary of Foreign Affairs
Term start3	May 7, 1784
Term end3	March 22, 1790
Predecessor3	Robert Livingston
Successor3	Thomas Jefferson(as United States Secretary of State)
Office4	President of the Continental Congress
Term start4	December 10, 1778
Term end4	September 28, 1779
Predecessor4	Henry Laurens
Successor4	Samuel Huntington
Birthdate	December 12, 1745
Birthplace	New York, New York
Deathdate	May 17, 1829
Deathplace	Bedford, New York
Spouse	Sarah Livingston (see Livingston family)
Religion	Episcopalian
Alma mater	King's College (now Columbia University)
Signature	John Jay Signature2.svg

John Jay (December 12, 1745 – May 17, 1829) was an American politician, statesman, revolutionary, diplomat, a Founding Father of the United States, and the first Chief Justice of the United States (1789–95).

Jay served as the President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779. During and after the American Revolution, Jay was a minister (ambassador) to Spain and France, helping to fashion United States foreign policy, and to secure favorable peace terms from Great Britain (with Jay's Treaty of 1794) and the First French Republic. Jay also co-wrote the Federalist Papers, along with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.

As a leader of the new Federalist Party, Jay was the Governor of New York State from 1795 to 1801, and he became the state's leading opponent of slavery. His first two attempts to pass laws for the emancipation of all slaves in New York failed in 1777 and in 1785, but his third attempt succeeded in 1799. The new law that he signed into existence brought about the emancipation of all slaves there before his death in 1829.

Early life

Birth

Jay was born on December 12, 1745, to a wealthy family of merchants in New York City. He was the eighth child and the sixth son in his family. The Jay family was of French Huguenot origin and was prominent in New York City. In 1685 the Edict of Nantes was revoked, thereby abolishing the rights of Protestants and confiscating their property. Among those affected was Jay's paternal grandfather, Augustus Jay, causing him to move from France to New York and to establish the Jay family there. Peter, Augustus's son and John's father, was a merchant and had ten children with his wife, Mary Van Cortlandt. Only seven of the ten children survived. After Jay was born, his family moved from Manhattan to Rye for a healthier environment; two of his siblings were blinded by the smallpox epidemic of 1739 and two suffered from mental handicaps. He was educated there by private tutors until he was eight years old, when he was sent to New Rochelle to study under Anglican pastor Pierre Stoupe. In 1756, after three years, he would return to homeschooling under the tutelage of George Murray. In 1760, Jay continued his studies at King's College, the then-sixteen-year-old forerunner of Columbia University. In 1764 he graduated and became a law clerk for Benjamin Kissam.

His first public role came as secretary to the New York committee of correspondence, where he represented the conservative faction that was interested in protecting property rights and in preserving the rule of law while resisting what it regarded as British violations of American rights. This faction feared the prospect of "mob rule". He believed the British tax measures were wrong and thought Americans were morally and legally justified in resisting them, but as a delegate to the First Continental Congress in 1774 he sided with those who wanted conciliation with Parliament. Events such as the burning of Norfolk, Virginia, by British troops in January 1776 pushed Jay to support independence. With the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War, he worked tirelessly for the revolutionary cause and acted to suppress the Loyalists. Thus Jay evolved into first a moderate and then an ardent Patriot once he decided that all the colonies' efforts at reconciliation with Britain were fruitless and that the struggle for independence which became the American Revolution was inevitable.

During the American Revolution

Having established a reputation as a reasonable moderate in New York, Jay was elected to serve as delegate to the First and Second Continental Congresses which debated whether the colonies should declare independence. He attempted to reconcile the colonies with Britain, up until the Declaration of Independence. Jay's views became more radical as events unfolded; he became an ardent separatist and attempted to move New York towards that cause.

In 1774, at the close of the Continental Congress, Jay returned to New York. There he served on New York City's Committee of Sixty, where he attempted to enforce a non-importation agreement passed by the First Continental Congress. his duties as a New York Congressman prevented him from voting on or signing the Declaration of Independence. Jay served on the committee to detect and defeat conspiracies, which monitored British Actions. New York's Provincial Congress elected Jay the Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court on May 8, 1777, which he served on for two years. Jay served as President of the Continental Congress from December 10, 1778, to September 28, 1779; he chaired the meetings but had little power.

As a diplomat

On September 27, 1779, Jay was appointed Minister to Spain. His mission was to get financial aid, commercial treaties and recognition of American independence. The royal court of Spain refused to officially receive Jay as the Minister of the United States, as it refused to recognize American Independence until 1783, fearing that such recognition could spark revolution in their own colonies. Jay, however, convinced Spain to loan $170,000 to the US government. He departed Spain on May 20, 1782. Benjamin Franklin was the most experienced diplomat of the group, and thus Jay wished to lodge near him, in order to learn from him. The United States agreed to negotiate with Britain separately, then with France. In July 1782, the Earl of Shelburne offered the Americans independence, but Jay rejected the offer on the grounds that it did not recognize American independence during the negotiations; Jay's dissent halted negotiations until the fall. The treaty granted the United States independence, but left many border regions in dispute, and many of its provisions were not enforced.

Jay believed his responsibility was not matched by a commensurate level of authority, so he joined Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in advocating for a stronger government than the one dictated by the Articles of Confederation. He argued in his Address to the People of the State of New-York, on the Subject of the Federal Constitution that the Articles of Confederation were too weak and ineffective a form of government. He contended that:

The Congress under the Articles of Confederation may make war, but are not empowered to raise men or money to carry it on—they may make peace, but without power to see the terms of it observed—they may form alliances, but without ability to comply with the stipulations on their part—they may enter into treaties of commerce, but without power to [e]nforce them at home or abroad...—In short, they may consult, and deliberate, and recommend, and make requisitions, and they who please may regard them.

Federalist Papers 1788

Jay did not attend the Constitutional Convention but joined Hamilton and Madison in aggressively arguing in favor of the creation of a new and more powerful, centralized but balanced system of government. Writing under the shared pseudonym of "Publius," they articulated this vision in the Federalist Papers, a series of eighty-five articles written to persuade the citizenry to ratify the proposed Constitution of the United States. Jay wrote the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixty-fourth articles. All except the sixty-fourth concerned the "[d]angers from [f]oreign [f]orce and [i]nfluence".

The Jay Court

In September 1789, George Washington offered the position of Secretary of State (which, though technically a new position, would have continued Jay's service as Secretary of Foreign Affairs); he declined. Washington responded by offering him the position of the first Chief Justice of the United States, which Jay accepted. Washington officially nominated Jay on September 24, 1789, the same day he signed the Judiciary Act of 1789 (which created the position of Chief Justice) into law. Jay would later serve with Thomas Johnson, who took Rutledge's seat, and William Paterson, who took Johnson's seat.

Cases

The Court heard only four cases during Jay's Chief Justiceship.

Its first case did not occur until early in the Court's third term, with West v. Barnes (1791). The Court had an early opportunity to establish the principle of judicial review in the United States with the case, which involved a Rhode Island state statute permitting the lodging of a debt payment in paper currency. Instead of grappling with the constitutionality of the law, however, the Court unanimously decided the case on procedural grounds, strictly interpreting statutory requirements. In a 4-1 ruling (Iredell dissented), the Jay Court ruled in favor of two South Carolinan Loyalists who had had their land seized by Georgia. This ruling sparked debate, as it implied that old debts must be paid to Loyalists. However, Jay's original Chisholm decision established that states were subject to judicial review.

In Hayburn's Case, the Jay Court ruled that courts could not comply with a federal statute that required the courts to decide whether individual petitioning American Revolution veterans qualified for pensions. The Jay Court ruled that determining whether petitioners qualified was an "act ... not of a judicial nature," and that because the statute allowed the legislature and the executive branch to revise the court's ruling, the statute violated the separation of powers as dictated by the United States Constitution.

In Georgia v. Brailsford (1794), the Court upheld jury instructions stating "you [jurors] have ...a right to take upon yourselves to ...determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." Jay noted for the jury the "good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide," but this amounted to no more than a presumption that the judges were correct about the law. Ultimately, "both objects [the law and the facts] are lawfully within your power of decision."

1792 campaign for Governor of New York

In 1792, Jay was the Federalist candidate for governor of New York, but he was defeated by Democratic-Republican George Clinton. Jay received more votes than George Clinton; but, on technicalities, the votes of Otsego, Tioga and Clinton counties were disqualified and, therefore, not counted, giving George Clinton a slight plurality. The State constitution said that the cast votes shall be delivered to the secretary of state "by the sheriff or his deputy"; but, for example, the Otsego County Sheriff's term had expired, so that legally, at the time of the election, the office of Sheriff was vacant and the votes could not be brought to the State capital. Clinton partisans in the State legislature, the State courts, and Federal offices were determined not to accept any argument that this would, in practice, violate the constitutional right to vote of the voters in these counties. Consequently, these votes were disqualified.

Jay Treaty

Relations with Britain verged on war in 1794. British exports dominated the U.S. market, while American exports were blocked by British trade restrictions and tariffs. Britain still occupied northern forts that it had agreed to surrender in the Treaty of Paris. Britain’s impressment of American sailors and seizure of naval and military supplies bound to enemy ports on neutral ships also created conflict. Madison proposed a trade war, "A direct system of commercial hostility with Great Britain," assuming that Britain was so weakened by its war with France that it would agree to American terms and not declare war. Washington rejected that policy and sent Jay as a special envoy to Great Britain to negotiate a new treaty; Jay remained Chief Justice. Washington had Alexander Hamilton write instructions for Jay that were to guide him in the negotiations. In March 1795, the resulting treaty, known as the Jay Treaty, was brought to Philadelphia. and granted the United States "most favored nation" status, The failure to get compensation for slaves taken by the British during the Revolution "was a major reason for the bitter Southern opposition". Jefferson and Madison, fearing a commercial alliance with aristocratic Britain might undercut republicanism, led the opposition. Jay complained he could travel from Boston to Philadelphia solely by the light of his burning effigies. However, led by Hamilton's newly created Federalist party and support from Washington, strongly backed Jay and thus won the battle of public opinion. Washington put his prestige on the line behind the treaty and Hamilton and the Federalists mobilized public opinion. The Senate ratified the treaty by a 20-10 vote (just enough to meet the 2/3 requirement.) Graffiti appeared near Jay's house after the treaty's ratification, reading, "Damn John Jay. Damn everyone that won't damn John Jay. Damn everyone that won't put up the lights in the windows and sit up all nights damning John Jay."

In 1812, relations between Britain and the U.S. faltered. The desire of a group of members in the House of Representatives, known as the War Hawks, to acquire land from Canada and the British impressment of American ships led, in part, to the War of 1812.

Governor of New York

While in Britain, Jay was elected in May, 1795, as the second governor of New York State (following George Clinton) as a Federalist. He resigned from the Supreme Court service on June 29, 1795, and served six years as governor until 1801.

As Governor, he received a proposal from Hamilton to gerrymander New York for the Presidential election of that year; he marked the letter "Proposing a measure for party purposes which it would not become me to adopt," and filed it without replying. President John Adams then renominated him to the Supreme Court; the Senate quickly confirmed him, but he declined, citing his own poor health

While governor, Jay ran in the 1796 presidential election, winning five electoral votes, and in the 1800 election, winning one vote.

Jay declined the Federalist renomination for governor in 1801 and retired to the life of a farmer in Westchester County, New York. Soon after his retirement, his wife died. Jay remained in good health, continued to farm and stayed out of politics.

Death

On the night of May 14, 1829, Jay was stricken with palsy, probably caused by a stroke. He lived for three days, dying in Bedford, New York, on May 17. Jay had chosen to be buried in Rye, where he lived as a boy. In 1807, he had transferred the remains of his ancestors from the family vault in the Bowery in Manhattan to Rye, establishing a private cemetery. Today, the Jay Cemetery is an integral part of the Boston Post Road Historic District, adjacent to the historic Jay Property. The Cemetery is maintained by the Jay descendants and closed to the public. It is the oldest active cemetery associated with a figure from the American Revolution.

The original Jay family estate, overlooking Long Island Sound, was first established in Rye in 1745 when Jay was three months old. It passed into John Jay's possession in 1815; and he conveyed it to his eldest son, Peter Augustus Jay, in 1822. The property remained in the Jay family through 1904.

What remains of the original estate is a parcel called the Jay Property and the 1838 Peter Augustus Jay House built by Peter Augustus Jay over the footprint of his father's original home "The Locusts." Stewardship of the site and restoration of several of its buildings for educational use was entrusted by the New York State Board of Regents to the Jay Heritage Center.

Personal views

As an abolitionist

Jay was a leader against slavery after 1777, when he drafted a state law to abolish slavery; it failed as did a second attempt in 1785. Jay was the founder and president of the New York Manumission Society, in 1785, which organized boycotts against newspapers and merchants in the slave trade and provided legal counsel for free blacks claimed as slaves. The Society helped enact the gradual emancipation of slaves in New York in 1799, which Jay signed into law as governor.

Jay was pushing at an open door; every member of the New York legislature (but one) had voted for some form of emancipation in 1785; they had differed on what rights to give the free blacks afterwards. Aaron Burr both supported this bill and introduced an amendment calling for immediate abolition. The 1799 bill settled the matter by guaranteeing no rights at all. The 1799 "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery" provided that, from July 4 of that year, all children born to slave parents would be free (subject only to apprenticeship) and that slave exports would be prohibited. These same children would be required to serve the mother’s owner until age twenty-eight for males and age twenty-five for females. The law thus defined a type of indentured servant while slating them for eventual freedom. All slaves were emancipated by July 4, 1827; the process may perhaps have been the largest emancipation in North America before 1861, except for the British Army's recruitment of runaway slaves during the American Revolution.

In the close 1792 election, Jay's antislavery work hurt his election chances in upstate New York Dutch areas, where slavery was still practiced. In 1794, in the process of negotiating the Jay Treaty with the British, Jay angered Southern slave-owners when he dropped their demands for compensation for slaves who had been captured and carried away during the Revolution. He made a practice of buying slaves and then freeing them when they were adults and he judged their labors had been a reasonable return on their price; he owned eight in 1798, the year before the emancipation act was passed.

Religion

, near Katonah, New York, is a New York State Historic Site and National Historic Landmark.]] Jay was Anglican, a denomination renamed the Protestant Episcopal Church in America after the American Revolution. Since 1785 Jay had been a warden of Trinity Church, New York. As Congress's Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he supported the proposal after the Revolution that the Archbishop of Canterbury approve the ordination of bishops for the Episcopal Church in the United States.

In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray, dated October 12, 1816, Jay wrote, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Legacy

in New York City]] Several geographical locations have adopted John Jay's name, including: Jay, Maine; Jay, New York; Jay, Vermont; Jay County, Indiana and Jay Street in Brooklyn. In 1964, the City University of New York's College of Police Science was officially renamed the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. The colonial Fort Jay on Governors Island is also named for him. Mount John Jay, also known as Boundary Peak 18, a summit on the border between Alaska and British Columbia, Canada, is also named for him, as is Jay Peak, in northern Vermont.

On December 12, 1958, the United States Postal Service released a 15¢ Liberty Issue postage stamp honoring Jay.

There are also high schools named after Jay located in Cross River, New York; Hopewell Junction, New York and San Antonio, Texas. The Best Western Hotel chain named several of their colonial motif hotels the John Jay Inn.

Exceptional undergraduates at Columbia University are designated John Jay Scholars, and one of that university's undergraduate dormitories is known as John Jay Hall. The John Jay Center on the campus of Robert Morris University and the John Jay Institute for Faith, Society & Law are also named for him. Jay's house, located near Katonah, New York, is preserved as a National Historic Landmark and as the John Jay Homestead State Historic Site.

Notes

See also

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

List of United States Chief Justices by time in office

List of United States Supreme Court Justices by time in office

United States Supreme Court cases during the Jay Court

New York Manumission Society

References and bibliography

Brecher, Frank W. Securing American Independence: John Jay and the French Alliance. Praeger, 2003. 327 pp.

Casto, William R. The Supreme Court in the Early Republic: The Chief Justiceships of John Jay and Oliver Ellsworth. U. of South Carolina Press, 1995. 267 pp.

Combs, Jerald. A. The Jay Treaty: Political Background of Founding Fathers (1970) (ISBN 0-520-01573-8); concludes the Federalists "followed the proper policy" because the treaty preserved peace with Britain

Elkins, Stanley M. and Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800. (1994), detailed political history

Estes, Todd. "John Jay, the Concept of Deference, and the Transformation of Early American Political Culture." Historian (2002) 65(2): 293-317. ISSN 0018-2370 Fulltext in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco

Ferguson, Robert A. "The Forgotten Publius: John Jay and the Aesthetics of Ratification." Early American Literature (1999) 34(3): 223-240. ISSN 0012-8163 Fulltext: in Swetswise and Ebsco

Johnson, Herbert A. "John Jay and the Supreme Court." New York History 2000 81(1): 59-90. ISSN 0146-437X

Kaminski, John P. "Honor and Interest: John Jay's Diplomacy During the Confederation." New York History (2002) 83(3): 293-327. ISSN 0146-437X

Kaminski, John P. "Shall We Have a King? John Jay and the Politics of Union." New York History (2000) 81(1): 31-58. ISSN 0146-437X

Klein, Milton M. "John Jay and the Revolution." New York History (2000) 81(1): 19-30. ISSN 0146-437X

Littlefield, Daniel C. "John Jay, the Revolutionary Generation, and Slavery" New York History 2000 81(1): 91-132. ISSN 0146-437X

Magnet, Myron. "The Education of John Jay" City Journal (Winter 2010) 20#1 online

Monaghan, Frank. John Jay: Defender of Liberty 1972. on abolitionism

Morris, Richard B. The Peacemakers: The Great Powers and American Independence 1965.

Morris, Richard B. Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries 1973. chapter on Jay

Morris, Richard B. Witness at the Creation; Hamilton, Madison, Jay and the Constitution 1985.

Morris, Richard B. ed. John Jay: The Winning of the Peace 1980. 9780060130480

Pellew, George John Jay 1890. Houghton Mifflin Company

Perkins, Bradford. The First Rapprochement; England and the United States: 1795-1805 Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1955.

Primary sources

Landa M. Freeman, Louise V. North, and Janet M. Wedge, eds. Selected Letters of John Jay and Sarah Livingston Jay: Correspondence by or to the First Chief Justice of the United States and His Wife (2005)

Morris, Richard B. ed. John Jay: The Making of a Revolutionary; Unpublished Papers, 1745-1780 1975.

Nuxoll, Elizabeth M., Mary A.Y. Gallagher, and Jennifer E. Steenshorne, eds. The Selected Papers of John Jay, Volume 1, 1760-1779 (University of Virginia Press; 2010) 912 pages. First volume in a projected seven-volume edition of Jay's incoming and outgoing correspondence

External links

{|style="border: 2px solid #aaa; font-size:90%;background:#f9f9f9;margin:1em 0em 1em 1em;float:right" cellpadding="5";

John Jay Quotations on Practical Quotations

History of the Court, the Jay Court 1789-1795, Supreme Court Historical Society

Jay Heritage Center

Jay's Treaty, Library of Congress

!   John Jay's Federalist Papers on

Federalist #2 Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence

Federalist #3 Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence (continued)

Federalist #4 Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence (continued)

Federalist #5 Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence (continued)

Federalist #64 The Powers of the Senate

|}

John Jay, Supreme Court Historical Society

Oyez Project U.S. Supreme Court media on John Jay.

John Jay at MetaLibri

John Jay bust, by John Frazee (1790-1852), Marble, circa 1831, Size: 24" h., Catalog No. 21.00010, S-141, Old Supreme Court Chamber, U.S. Senate Collection, Office of Senate Curator.

Essay: John Jay and the Constitution Online exhibition for Constitution Day 2005, based on the notes of Professor Richard B. Morris (1904–1989) and his staff, originally prepared for volume 3 of the Papers of John Jay.

The Papers of John Jay An image database and indexing tool comprising some 13,000 documents scanned chiefly from photocopies of original documents from the Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Columbia University in the City of New York and approximately 90 other institutions.

John Jay Bio

Category:1745 births Category:1829 deaths Category:Chief Justices of the United States Category:Governors of New York Category:United States presidential candidates, 1796 Category:United States vice-presidential candidates, 1800 Category:New York Federalists