ders have been published. Pashman failed to utilise them. The ten-volume edition of George Clinton’s public papers (published over 100 years ago) has but two citations by Pashman. Equally as bad, Pashman has failed to search the papers of important conservative New Yorkers such as John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, Philip Schuyler, and Robert R. Livingston. The modern edition of Jay’s papers has more than a half column of index page references dealing with the confiscation of Loyalist property, yet none of these references appear in Pashman’s book, presumably because Jay’s opposition to confiscations does not fit nicely into Pashman’s thesis. Astonishingly, Pashman fails to cite the two-volume History of New York during the Revolutionary War by the Loyalist historian Thomas Jones. Pashman also totally ignores Alfred Young’s wonderful The Democratic Republicans of New York: The Origins, 1773–1797 (1967), which addresses several theories that motivated the confiscation programme—the concept of republicanism and the charge that speculators greedily sought to acquire Loyalist estates inexpensively. Young also shows how Governor Clinton manipulated the confiscation programme for his supporters’ benefit. Pashman’s account could have benefited from these interpretations. These shortcomings are compounded by an index that has considerable shortcomings, such as no reference to bills of attainder, which are so integral to Pashman’s thesis. Thus, although Pashman presents a fairly thorough account of the advocacy of New York’s confiscatory programme, especially in Dutchess County (which has been thoroughly investigated by half a dozen scholars over the last fifty years), from a broader perspective Pashman obscures the actual motivation for and impact of the confiscations had on New York in the Revolutionary era. Pashman fails to see that New Yorkers embraced the postwar legal system because most of them wanted to establish a government based on justice and rights—not because they wanted to protect their ill-gotten gains.

中文翻译：

---

巡回法院在早期共和国美国法律形成中的作用：跟随最高法院大法官华盛顿、利文斯顿、斯托里和汤普森

ders 已发布。Pashman 未能利用它们。乔治·克林顿 (George Clinton) 的十卷版公开论文（发表于 100 多年前）只有两次被 Pashman 引用。同样糟糕的是，帕什曼未能搜索重要的保守派纽约人的论文，如约翰·杰伊、古弗尼尔·莫里斯、菲利普·斯凯勒和罗伯特·R·利文斯顿。杰伊论文的现代版有一半以上的索引页参考文献涉及没收保皇党财产，但这些参考文献都没有出现在帕什曼的书中，大概是因为杰伊反对没收的观点与帕什曼的论文不符。令人惊讶的是，帕什曼未能引用保皇派历史学家托马斯·琼斯 (Thomas Jones) 撰写的独立战争期间的两卷纽约史。帕什曼也完全无视阿尔弗雷德·杨精彩的纽约民主共和党人：起源，1773-1797（1967 年），该书阐述了激发没收计划的几种理论——共和主义的概念以及投机者贪婪地寻求廉价收购保皇党地产的指控. 杨还展示了克林顿州长如何为他的支持者的利益操纵没收计划。Pashman 的解释本可以从这些解释中受益。这些缺点因索引具有相当大的缺点而变得更加复杂，例如没有提及公民权利法案，这是 Pashman 论文中不可或缺的一部分。因此，虽然 Pashman 对纽约没收计划的宣传作了相当详尽的说明，尤其是在达切斯县（过去 50 年里，已经有六位学者对其进行了彻底调查），从更广泛的角度来看，帕什曼模糊了革命时期没收纽约的实际动机和影响。帕什曼没有看到纽约人接受战后法律制度是因为他们中的大多数人想要建立一个基于正义和权利的政府，而不是因为他们想要保护自己的不义之财。