American Civil Law

This may be a bit of a stupid question, but please bear with me as I'm something of a novice when it comes to American history.

Why wasn't a civil code adopted in the United States in the years following the revolution? Considering the legal developments in contemporary Europe at the time and the influence of the Enlightenment on the framers of the American Constitution, it seems natural that the extant English common law system would be discarded in favour of something more in line with lumière rationality.

What would be the consequences of a Federal Civil Code and what effects might it have on the history of the United States?
 

Tohno

Banned
the main reason was because Quebec was not into the US from the beginning. Also the 'founding fathers' were amazingly reactionary for 'revolutionaries'.
 
^Not to mention that a number were lawyers with experience and familiarity with the common law system as well as livelihoods to maintain.
 

NothingNow

Banned
^Not to mention that a number were lawyers with experience and familiarity with the common law system as well as livelihoods to maintain.

Hell, at that time, the Colonies had the highest concentration of lawyers (per capita and IIRC in absolute numbers as well) on the planet. The colonies and early united states were an intensely legalistic society.

Besides, realistically, federal law enforcement outside the Marshall's service and the revenue service would be hard to get funding for at this point, and likely wouldn't go over well with the populace.
Plus the Colonies/States already did law enforcement in their jurisdiction, and the governments often established sort of hybrid civil-common codes of their own.
 
the main reason was because Quebec was not into the US from the beginning. Also the 'founding fathers' were amazingly reactionary for 'revolutionaries'.

^Not to mention that a number were lawyers with experience and familiarity with the common law system as well as livelihoods to maintain.

Yeah, this.

The French Revolution shook the political order of France, and it was one spearheaded in many cases by the commoners, who fucking put the Bastille governor's head on a pike. The American War of Independence (my preferred term) was benign in its demands, and led by the colonial elite. Changing the legal system to a civil code was not in the interests of the elite.
 
Yeah, this.

The French Revolution shook the political order of France, and it was one spearheaded in many cases by the commoners, who fucking put the Bastille governor's head on a pike. The American War of Independence (my preferred term) was benign in its demands, and led by the colonial elite. Changing the legal system to a civil code was not in the interests of the elite.
The Napoleonic Civil Code was far from being revolutionary and by and large favoured the elites as well.
 
One can also safely presume that the Founding Fathers were completely terrified by the idea that any law can deny them their 'ancient rights' when that law may be passed by a wholly popular elected legislature.

Plus, bear in mind that until the Bill of Rights and Marbury v. Madison, they were very justified to think common law was the only safeguard against 'tyrannical government' and such stuff. And by the time the Bill of Rights and M v M happened, the legal system couldn't be changed.
 
This may be a bit of a stupid question, but please bear with me as I'm something of a novice when it comes to American history.

Why wasn't a civil code adopted in the United States in the years following the revolution?

a) Because the United States was just that - a bunch of States that happened to be united. Creating law was a matter for each State, not the Federal level.

b) The US had inherited the common law system from the British, and common law countries did not create Civil Code laws.

c) The intense local democratic traditions of the US would not go well together with "let a bunch of unelected experts far away decide what is best for us"-attitude. It worked well in Germany even before unification, and Napoleon could drive it through due to a combination of remaining revolutionary spirit, the need for a more efficent legal system and because he was the de facto dictator of France. But the early Americans praised "the original Englishness", and a huge part of that was the common law system.
 
This may be a bit of a stupid question, but please bear with me as I'm something of a novice when it comes to American history.

Why wasn't a civil code adopted in the United States in the years following the revolution? Considering the legal developments in contemporary Europe at the time and the influence of the Enlightenment on the framers of the American Constitution, it seems natural that the extant English common law system would be discarded in favour of something more in line with lumière rationality.

To what piurpose?

Such a code would have applied only in the thinly populated western Territories (until they became states and adopted Constitutions of their own) and later in the District of Columbia. Would it really be worth drawing up a fiull-blown civil code just for them?
 
To what piurpose?

Such a code would have applied only in the thinly populated western Territories (until they became states and adopted Constitutions of their own) and later in the District of Columbia. Would it really be worth drawing up a fiull-blown civil code just for them?
It could also apply to interstate suits, although a Commerce Code might be more useful...
 
English Common Law had already been evolving in much the same direction (in terms of substance of the laws) as the Civil Code reforms. England already had fairly uniform laws across the whole country (very little feudal autonomy survived the Wars of the Roses, the Tudor reforms, and the English Civil War), and thanks to Glorious Revolution and its aftermath and the relative strength of Parliament (particularly the House of Commons) those laws were largely friendly towards the emerging commercial/industrial middle class.

From a functional perspective, Blackstone's Commentaries served as an ersatz civil code for English Common Law countries: documenting prevailing practices and precedents, resolving their internal inconsistencies, and rationalizing them to an Enlightenment conceptual framework.

Both factors are even more true of the United States. The American Colonies had never had a feudal system on the European sense and had even less baggage therefrom than England, and Blackstone was often used as a handbook for setting up a legal system on the American frontier.
 
the main reason was because Quebec was not into the US from the beginning. Also the 'founding fathers' were amazingly reactionary for 'revolutionaries'.

There is a distinction between the "legalistic" (to use the common term in this thread) founding fathers and the more free-spirited rebels who did a good deal of the fighting, such as those who perpetrated the Boston Tea Party. Thomas Paine is an example, I believe (somebody correct me if I'm wrong).
 
Top