War, Empire, and Anarchy in the Languages of American National Security
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
War is the Health of the State: War, Empire, and Anarchy In the Languages of American National Security A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Ryan M. Johnson IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Barbara Y. Welke and Kevin P. Murphy December 2014 © Ryan M. Johnson 2014 Acknowledgements Graduate students accrue a number of debts over the years, financial, intellectual, emotional, and everywhere else in between. This project would not have been possible without the financial assistance of a number of historical and academic institutions that provide the kinds of support required of such an endeavor. The American Historical Association’s Littleton-Griswold Research Grant has become a key contributor to successful dissertation projects throughout the years, my own included. I particularly benefitted from the Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship offered by the University of Minnesota Graduate School, opening up the time in my schedule required to finish up the majority of the writing for my work. I would like to thank the American Society for Legal History, not only for the financial help allotted by the William H. Cromwell Fellowship, but for providing a warm and inviting intellectual atmosphere at their yearly conferences and their general enthusiasm for new research. Similarly, I would like to thank the UMN Law School for assisting in the research of graduate students with the Erickson Fellowship in Legal History, but perhaps more so, for encouraging new and exciting work by being both open-minded and intellectually engaging. Susanna Blumenthal and Carol Chomsky deserve particular recognition and gratitude. Thank you. Completing a dissertation can be both exhilarating and, at times, daunting. I want to thank my committee for making the process much more exhilarating than daunting. Donna Gabaccia, Bianet Castellanos, Tracey Deutsch, Kevin Murphy, and Barbara Welke each made the process rather exciting and enjoyable, not only providing their own brilliant insights, but generally creating an atmosphere of encouragement and support. I i owe particular thanks to my advisers Kevin and Barbara. I chose the University of Minnesota, in the hopes of working with professionals that I not only deeply respect for their own work, but because I believed that these would be people that encouraged intellectual growth and the space to create a personal and interesting project. They did not disappoint. Kevin is the type of adviser that when he provides comments, they are world- changing and deep in a way that I never could have figured out on my own. On top of this, he truly cares about those he works with. My first week in Minnesota, Kevin took me out to a fantastic vegan restaurant and made sure that I felt welcome in my new environment. Barbara is an amazing professional that puts in more effort than anyone else I have ever met. Not only is she brilliant, but works to guarantee that her advisees work according to their own potential. I am an avid cyclist, who for many years did not wear a helmet while I rode, and Barbara made sure to comment every time she saw me without one. I now always wear a helmet while I ride. I know my project would not have been possible without the professional support of these two, but I perhaps owe the biggest debt to them for these seemingly smaller and more personal affectations, which too will have a lasting impact. I have been lucky to have a strong community of comrades and fellow graduate students at Minnesota and elsewhere. I would like to thank Andrew Hoyt, Joanna DeLaune, Laura Luepke, Diana Dinerman, Garrett Karrberg, and Andrew Paul. I owe special thanks to Liz Venditto and Jay Kim for our dissertation group meetings and generally being lovely individuals. I also wanted to thank the bouldering crew for meeting nearly every week at the climbing gym, including Ann Zimo, Evan Taparata, ii Ellen Manovich, Miguel Morales, and Nate Holdren. Nate, in particular, became a dear friend not only for our conversations on academia, intellectualism, and radicalism writ large but for our long climbs and general camaraderie. Dan Navar has likewise been a long-time friend whose late-night drinks helped to develop my own sense of intellectualism but generally the person I am today. Thank you to you all. I also wanted to thank the wonderful faculty at California State University Los Angeles, including Chris Endy, Cheryl Koos, and Carole Srole. I would not be where I am today if it were not for the dedication to education and intellectual exchange of these wonderful people. Carole, in particular, has been a magnificent mentor and friend, providing encouragement and support in my academic pursuits. Jillian Green deserves particular gratitude for always being there for me. She has listened to my intellectual ramblings now for close to a decade and has always been a receptive listener when I needed someone to talk to the most, even when the dissertation was the topic at hand. I cannot thank you enough. Finally, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to the memory of Monica Taylor, friend, comrade, and generally brilliant individual. I only knew Monica a few short years, but we grew up together intellectually at CSU Los Angeles. I always looked up to her, even though I joined grad school ahead of her. The collective voice of academia will never be quite as sharp, brilliant, or sophisticated without having her here. iii Dedication For Monica, in loving memory iv Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………...i Dedication………………………………………………………………………………...iv List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………….vi Introduction………………………………………………………………………………1 Chapter I Law and (Dis)Order: Anarchism and the Popular Culture of State Power………………………………………………………………………39 Chapter II “‘Law and Order’ Be Our War Cry”: Languages of War, Empire, and the Anarchist Enemy…………………………………………99 Chapter III The “Dregs of Europe”: Enemy Anarchists and Immigration Reform………………………………………………………..154 Chapter IV The Teratological Anarchist Monster: Discourses of Disease, Surveillance, and Censorship of Anarchist Press………………………………224 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...278 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………....285 v List of Figures Figure 1.1 “The Anarchist Riot in Chicago”……………………………………….…54 Figure 1.2 “When His Skin is not in Danger—And When it is”…………………...…56 Figure 1.3 “Our Statue of Liberty—She Can Stand It”……………………………….65 Figure 1.4 “Where the Blame Lies”…………………………………………………...69 Figure 1.5 “Assassination of President McKinley”…………………………………...73 Figure 1.6 “Stamp it Out”……………………………………………………………..77 Figure 1.7 “Put ‘Em out and Keep ‘Em out”………………………………………….80 Figure 1.8 “Still a Strong Hand at the Wheel”……………………………………...…84 Figure 2.1 “The American Eagle—There is no Room For you in This Nest”……….107 Figure 2.2 “Time to Draw and Strike”…………………………………………….....113 Figure 2.3 “In the Cradle of Liberty!”……………………………………………….119 Figure 2.4 “An Illustrated Fable: Anarchist Agitator”……………………………….121 Figure 3.1 “A Menace”……………………………………………………………....167 Figure 3.2 “The Soul of the Anarchist”…………………………………………...…178 Figure 3.3 Public Opinion Cartoon…………………………………...……………..193 Figure 3.4 “About Time to Stop Acting as Sewer for the Entire World”…………....196 Figure 4.1 “House Cleaning”………………………………………………………...235 Figure 4.2 “Uncle Sam’s Vengeance”…………………………………………….…243 Figure 4.3 “Was it a Handkerchief?”…………………………………………….......249 Figure 4.4 “Two Venomous Confederates of Whom America Must Be Rid”…...…253 vi Figure 4.5 “The American People Will Destroy Anarchy and Silence Its Deadly Rattle—Yellow Journalism”.………………..…………………...…255 vii Introduction On the evening of September 6, 1901 crowds of fairgoers gathered around the Temple of Music at the Pan-American Exhibition in Buffalo, New York. They hoped to catch a glimpse of President William McKinley, who was at the fair to give a speech and meet members of the public, a common practice of the president who would be fondly remembered as a leader who was “ready to shake hands with the humblest of citizen of the land as the wealthiest millionaire.”1 Fairgoers packed into the exhibit in the hopes that they could exchange handshakes with the president and experience his famous “McKinley grip.”2 As the waves of attendees swelled around McKinley, a lone figure emerged, dressed in black and hand outstretched as if to shake the president’s hand. Instead of an open palm, however, his hand held a revolver covered by a handkerchief and before the Secret Service agents present realized the impending danger, this jubilant scene turned macabre as the unidentified man shot the president in the chest and abdomen. McKinley died from his wounds eight days later. This violent scene set the stage for the creation of a popular, political, and legal culture premised upon defending the American nation from the specter of anarchy, both real and imagined. In this dissertation, I argue that the opening years of the twentieth century should be understood as a critical moment in the history of the American national security state. Beginning in 1901, government institutions enacted security legislation and policy in an effort to defend the state and the nation from the threat of enemy anarchists, 1 Eva McDonald Valesh, “Pres. McKinley—His Personality,” Minneapolis Tribune, Sep. 7, 1901: p. 3. 2 Quote taken from Scott Miller, The President and the Assassin: McKinley, Terror, and Empire at the Dawn of the American Century (New York: Random House, 2011), 4. 1 engaging in a political and popular cultural environment defined by discourses surrounding exclusion and surveillance. When anarchist Leon Czolgosz shot and killed President William McKinley in September 1901, popular media sources painted anarchism as a dangerous political philosophy and the anarchist as a direct threat to the nation. I analyze these popular conceptualizations of anarchists as enemies of the nation and state alongside the circulation of a security-centric political discourse and the growth of surveillance bureaucracies as a way to trace the rise of a culture of state power and national identity centered upon the languages and metaphors of national security.