This spring I am again teaching my seminar on “Law and History.” In case of interest, here is our list of readings. The seminar is aimed at future lawyers, not future legal historians. So, the goal is not to be comprehensive or to provide the kind of methodological instruction that a history department legal history course might attempt. Rather, the goal is to give students a sampling of different approaches and topics in legal history (with an emphasis on recent scholarship rather than attempting a full survey of “canonical” works), some insight into how historians think (or think they think) as compared to how lawyers think (or think they think), and an introduction to the issues that arise when historians seek to inform or influence the law, and/or when courts draw on narratives about history to explain their decisions.
This year, I reshuffled things to more concretely pair historical readings on a given theme with an example of a Supreme Court case on the same theme that draws on history or narratives about history in some way. (Every third week is a workshop session on the students’ own papers, which sometimes also involves readings that we are using as models, but I haven’t included those readings here.) Continue reading Law and History Seminar (new and improved)