John Marshall as a Sockpuppet

Sandy Levinson

As a relative amateur with regard to blogging, I was intrigued to discover the term "sockpuppet" in Deborah Solomon's interview in the Sunday Times Magaine with Lee Siegel concerning his fall from grace at the New Republic for blogging under a false name and praising his own work and attacking his detractors. Devotees will of course also recall John Lott's exposure for having done something similar.

Consider then that John Marshall, under the names "Friend of the Constitution" and "Friend to the Union" published extensive essays in the Philadelphia Union and Alexandria Gazette vigorously defending his opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland against critiques published, also anonymously, by William Brockenborough and, more seriously, Spencer Roane. Perhaps most interesting is Marshall's (anonymous) comment that though it is true that the Chief Justice "is a federalist . . . who was a politician of some note before he was a judge," critics of McCulloch should take into account that the decision was joined by "all the judges--four of whom have no political sin upon their heads;--who in addition to being eminent lawyers, have the greater advantage of being sound republicans."

Gerald Gunther discovered Marshall's essays some years ago and published them in a book. I was reminded of them in a fine new book, M'Culloch v. Maryland: Securing a Nation, by Mark R. Killenbeck of the University of Arkansas Law School, published by the University of Kansas Press. Killenbeck devotes a full chapter to the post-decision exchanges between Marshall and his critics.

In any event, it is simply false to argue, as Siegel seems to, that anonymous (and highly self-serving) sockpuppetry is somehow "caused" by the development of the blogosphere, even if it certainly makes it easier. But my question is this: If we are censurious of Siegel and Lott and other contemporary sock-puppets, then what view should we have of Marshall or of Walt Whitman? As one web site notes, "The 1855 publication of Leaves of Grass was heralded by anonymous reviews printed in New York papers, which were clearly written by Whitman himself. They accurately described the break-through nature of his "transcendent and new" work."

God helps those who help themselves, it is often said. Is it mandatory that one always be transparent in such self-help, or is sockpuppetry, at the end of the day, acceptable? Or is it simply that we today have a different view of such self-help (ah, moral relativism again rears its ugly head) and find objectionable today conduct that was perfectly all right in Philadelphia and Alexandria in 1819 and New York in 1851?

Incidentally, I am told that "Enraptured by Levinson" will shortly post a blog describing my new book "Our Undemocratic Constitution" as a "must read for every American." If you can't believe me, surely you should believe "enraptured by Levinson" :)
Posted 3:19 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]