Abstract
Eleventh Amendment scholarship has reached a point of rapidly diminishing marginal returns, with the incremental payoff in knowledge or insight barely exceeding the scholarly effort expended. This problem is most acute with so-called grand theory articles, where the author synthesizes the various historical, textual, doctrinal, and other sources in constructing a unified view of the subject. With most of these sources well worked over, there is increasingly less worth saying. Consequently, this Article offers a more limited project: An extended examination of a specific historical source relied on in the Court's recent Eleventh Amendment decisions.