Richard E. Ellis is Professor of History at the University of Buffalo, SUNY. Among his published works are The Jeffersonian Crisis: Courts and Politics in the Young Republic (1971) and The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, State's Rights, and the Nullification Crisis (1987). He has held grants from The John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the American Council of Learned Societies.

• Introduction ; 1. The United States Supreme Court vs.the States ; 2. The Second Bank of the United States ; 3. The States vs. the 2BUS ; 4. McCulloch v. Maryland ; 5. Virginia's Response to McCulloch v. Maryland ; 6. Ohio and the Bank of the United States ; 7. Ohio and Georgia before the United States Supreme Court ; 8. Coda ; Endnotes ; Index

"A firm narrative that will be fascinating to the general reader"--Maryland Historical Magazine"Richard E. Ellis has once again earned great admiration from all students of American history. Lucid, forceful, and important, Aggressive Nationalism will fundamentally change the standard views of emerging American nationalism and the fascinating politics that lay behind it. It is a major contribution from a consistently impressive and pioneering historian."--Sean Wilentz, Princeton University"Richard Ellis always finds new ways of understanding familiar topics - with the added, singular virtue of being so right. A judicious historian, Ellis determinedly renders historical events in real time and place. John Marshall's McCulloch v. Maryland opinion--long a chestnut of constitutional interpretation and analysis--endures as a bold statement for perennial problems of federalism and constitutional interpretation (despite Justice Scalia'smisguided disdain). Ellis effectively challenges Marshall's questionable determination to protect the Bank of the United States; but Ellis also properly recognizes that Marshall's striking language remains thestandard for a wise, pragmatic, and evolving interpretation of the Constitution. We can be grateful for this extraordinary book."--Stanley Kutler, author of Privilege and Creative Destruction: The Charles River Bridge Case"Both scholarly and readable, this study puts the great case of McCulloch v. Maryland in a clear historical context. It will enlighten both students and specialists."--Michael Les Benedict, Ohio State University"The Ellis text offers insightful analysis of how individual states fared before, during, and after the national bank controversy."--Law and Politics Book Review"a detailed account of one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court cases in the early nineteenth century...Ellis is adept at using the story of McCulloch to illuminate the broader politics of the middle Jeffersonian era...Ellis's careful attention to the conflicted feelings about the loss of control over credit and revenue in the states in the 1810s is most welcome."--The Journal of American History"Ellis's book should be read for its valuable exploration of sub-state versus federal constitutional politics."--The American Historical Review"Richard Ellis's study usefully places McCulloch v. Maryland in its broad historical context. By doing so, Ellis demonstrates yet again how Chief Justice John Marshall cleverly situated his most sweeping constitutional pronouncements in cases that raised only narrow issues and would not, when decided, present the Supreme Court with difficult problems of enforcement."--William E. Nelson, New York University School of Law

Richard E. Ellis is Professor of History at the University of Buffalo, SUNY. Among his published works are The Jeffersonian Crisis: Courts and Politics in the Young Republic (1971) and The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, State's Rights, and the Nullification Crisis (1987). He has held grants from The John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the American Council of Learned Societies.

• Introduction ; 1. The United States Supreme Court vs.the States ; 2. The Second Bank of the United States ; 3. The States vs. the 2BUS ; 4. McCulloch v. Maryland ; 5. Virginia's Response to McCulloch v. Maryland ; 6. Ohio and the Bank of the United States ; 7. Ohio and Georgia before the United States Supreme Court ; 8. Coda ; Endnotes ; Index

"A firm narrative that will be fascinating to the general reader"--Maryland Historical Magazine"Richard E. Ellis has once again earned great admiration from all students of American history. Lucid, forceful, and important, Aggressive Nationalism will fundamentally change the standard views of emerging American nationalism and the fascinating politics that lay behind it. It is a major contribution from a consistently impressive and pioneering historian."--Sean Wilentz, Princeton University"Richard Ellis always finds new ways of understanding familiar topics - with the added, singular virtue of being so right. A judicious historian, Ellis determinedly renders historical events in real time and place. John Marshall's McCulloch v. Maryland opinion--long a chestnut of constitutional interpretation and analysis--endures as a bold statement for perennial problems of federalism and constitutional interpretation (despite Justice Scalia'smisguided disdain). Ellis effectively challenges Marshall's questionable determination to protect the Bank of the United States; but Ellis also properly recognizes that Marshall's striking language remains thestandard for a wise, pragmatic, and evolving interpretation of the Constitution. We can be grateful for this extraordinary book."--Stanley Kutler, author of Privilege and Creative Destruction: The Charles River Bridge Case"Both scholarly and readable, this study puts the great case of McCulloch v. Maryland in a clear historical context. It will enlighten both students and specialists."--Michael Les Benedict, Ohio State University"The Ellis text offers insightful analysis of how individual states fared before, during, and after the national bank controversy."--Law and Politics Book Review"a detailed account of one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court cases in the early nineteenth century...Ellis is adept at using the story of McCulloch to illuminate the broader politics of the middle Jeffersonian era...Ellis's careful attention to the conflicted feelings about the loss of control over credit and revenue in the states in the 1810s is most welcome."--The Journal of American History"Ellis's book should be read for its valuable exploration of sub-state versus federal constitutional politics."--The American Historical Review"Richard Ellis's study usefully places McCulloch v. Maryland in its broad historical context. By doing so, Ellis demonstrates yet again how Chief Justice John Marshall cleverly situated his most sweeping constitutional pronouncements in cases that raised only narrow issues and would not, when decided, present the Supreme Court with difficult problems of enforcement."--William E. Nelson, New York University School of Law

Richard E. Ellis is Professor of History at the University of Buffalo, SUNY. Among his published works are The Jeffersonian Crisis: Courts and Politics in the Young Republic (1971) and The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, State's Rights, and the Nullification Crisis (1987). He has held grants from The John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the American Council of Learned Societies.

• Introduction ; 1. The United States Supreme Court vs.the States ; 2. The Second Bank of the United States ; 3. The States vs. the 2BUS ; 4. McCulloch v. Maryland ; 5. Virginia's Response to McCulloch v. Maryland ; 6. Ohio and the Bank of the United States ; 7. Ohio and Georgia before the United States Supreme Court ; 8. Coda ; Endnotes ; Index

"A firm narrative that will be fascinating to the general reader"--Maryland Historical Magazine"Richard E. Ellis has once again earned great admiration from all students of American history. Lucid, forceful, and important, Aggressive Nationalism will fundamentally change the standard views of emerging American nationalism and the fascinating politics that lay behind it. It is a major contribution from a consistently impressive and pioneering historian."--Sean Wilentz, Princeton University"Richard Ellis always finds new ways of understanding familiar topics - with the added, singular virtue of being so right. A judicious historian, Ellis determinedly renders historical events in real time and place. John Marshall's McCulloch v. Maryland opinion--long a chestnut of constitutional interpretation and analysis--endures as a bold statement for perennial problems of federalism and constitutional interpretation (despite Justice Scalia'smisguided disdain). Ellis effectively challenges Marshall's questionable determination to protect the Bank of the United States; but Ellis also properly recognizes that Marshall's striking language remains thestandard for a wise, pragmatic, and evolving interpretation of the Constitution. We can be grateful for this extraordinary book."--Stanley Kutler, author of Privilege and Creative Destruction: The Charles River Bridge Case"Both scholarly and readable, this study puts the great case of McCulloch v. Maryland in a clear historical context. It will enlighten both students and specialists."--Michael Les Benedict, Ohio State University"The Ellis text offers insightful analysis of how individual states fared before, during, and after the national bank controversy."--Law and Politics Book Review"a detailed account of one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court cases in the early nineteenth century...Ellis is adept at using the story of McCulloch to illuminate the broader politics of the middle Jeffersonian era...Ellis's careful attention to the conflicted feelings about the loss of control over credit and revenue in the states in the 1810s is most welcome."--The Journal of American History"Ellis's book should be read for its valuable exploration of sub-state versus federal constitutional politics."--The American Historical Review"Richard Ellis's study usefully places McCulloch v. Maryland in its broad historical context. By doing so, Ellis demonstrates yet again how Chief Justice John Marshall cleverly situated his most sweeping constitutional pronouncements in cases that raised only narrow issues and would not, when decided, present the Supreme Court with difficult problems of enforcement."--William E. Nelson, New York University School of Law