The Ideology of Democratic Empire in the Antebellum United States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Empire of the People: The Ideology of Democratic Empire in the Antebellum United States A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Adam J. Dahl IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Joan Tronto, Joe Soss July 2014 © Adam J. Dahl 2014 Acknowledgements I have long awaited the chance to thank the members of my dissertation committee for all of their support and help. But as that chance has finally arrived, I am coming to the realization that anything I could say is woefully inadequate. Nevertheless, I’ll give it a try. First and foremost, my co-advisors, Joan Tronto and Joe Soss, deserve especial thanks. Joan patiently followed the project through at every step, and she has been supportive even when I wasn’t entirely clear about exactly what I was doing. She has served as an excellent mentor and has provided a valuable model of advising that I hope I can emulate someday. Joe saw my research interests twist and turn in numerous directions over the past few years, and at times he was able to better express what I was up to than I myself could. He was more generous with his time and ideas than I could ever hope a mentor would be. Liz Beaumont provided crucial guidance and help at key moments, and she encouraged me to keep going even when I thought I hit a dead end. Dara Strolovitch always pushed me on difficult questions and issues, and the dissertation is undoubtedly stronger because of it. Antonio Vazquez-Arroyo was continually enthusiastic about the project and his teaching and mentorship on how to do ideological history has significantly shaped my own intellectual approach. Charmaine Chua, Garnet Kindervater, Zein Murib, and David Temin read more chapter drafts than I can remember. In addition to being good friends, they were always willing to let me bounce ideas off of them even when they had their own things to work on. Whether it was providing feedback or helping me forget about the dissertation altogether, several friends and colleagues have made the writing process more bearable: Azer Binnet, Brooke Coe, Matt Edling, Ashley English, David Forrest, Caleb Goltz, Charles Gregory, Matt Hindman, Chase Hobbs-Morgan, Dan Mizinov, Eli Myerhoff, Bryan Nakayama, Libby Sharrow, Chris Stone, Sergio Valverde, and Vincent Vecera. Several faculty members at the University of Minnesota have played a helpful role in shaping my research interests: Scott Abernathy, Joe Gerteis, Lawrence Jacobs, Nancy Luxon, and Wendy Rahn. Several people outside of the University community have also lent me their ears and offered helpful advice and encouragement at various stages of the i project: Sean Beienburg, Kevin Bruyneel, Paul Frymer, Daragh Grant, Charles Mills, Jeanne Morefield, Robert Nichols, Jennifer Pitts, Nick Smith, Mark Rifkin, Lisa Wedeen, and Elizabeth Wingrove. The writing of this dissertation would have been impossible without crucial financial support. The Department of Political Science at the University of Minnesota was always supportive, both intellectually and financially. At a time when the neoliberal university seems to be in a persistent state of fiscal austerity, the Political Science Department went above and beyond the call of duty to make sure I was able to write the dissertation I wanted to. The Mellon Foundation and the American Council of Learned Societies provided me with a completion fellowship that allowed me to finish writing free from teaching responsibilities and conduct archival research in Chicago and New York. Staff at the New York Historical Society, the New York Public Library, and the Newberry Library also provided assistance during my archival visits. My family has been most important in helping me stay sane throughout my graduate career. My parents, Pam and Nelson, were always supportive of my decisions and they were always eager to hear about my progress and what I was working on. My brothers, Nate and Tyler, couldn’t have cared less what I was working on, but drinking with them over winter and summer breaks helped ease the stress of dissertation writing. Gouda and Harmon would like to think they helped, but the most I can say is that they provided much needed distractions when the pressures of writing became immense. Most importantly, I would like to thank Laura Attanasio for her grace, patience, and intellect. Between picking up the slack around the house when I was too “busy” to help out and listening to me ramble on about nineteenth century American politics and culture she has been a wonderful and insightful partner in life and living. Lastly, I would like to thank the city I have been fortunate enough to call home for the past six years. Stay classy Minneapolis. ii Abstract Settler colonialism played a constitutive role in the construction of democratic culture in the antebellum United States. This dissertation argues that democratic values of popular sovereignty and social equality acquired their conceptual coherence and institutional realization through settler conquest and indigenous dispossession. Out of this dynamic emerged an “ideology of democratic empire,” a distinct ideological formation in which the active agent of expansion is not colonial administration or the imperial state but the people in their sovereign capacity for self-government. In this mode of empire, settler conquest acted as a form of foundational violence that enabled the construction of a new democratic society through the elimination of indigenous sovereignty. I trace the ideological development of democratic empire in three phases. First, federalist discourses in the revolutionary period provided a new world conception of empire that privileged the equality of quasi-sovereign settler communities over notions of empire organized around the governance of colonial dependencies. Second, social equality in the Jacksonian period developed in relation to settler expansion, which guarded against the resurgence of feudal land title in the New World and ensured the priority of popular sovereignty over aristocratic systems of rule. The last phase unearths counter-narratives of democratic empire to reveal how colonial subjects challenged settler-colonial rule by reconfiguring antebellum notions of popular sovereignty. Through a conceptual- historical reconstruction of the relationship between settler expansion and American democracy, my project provides the basis for a decolonial theory of democracy that de- normalizes settler experiences as the unsurpassable horizon of democratic politics. iii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i ABSTRACT iii INTRODUCTION: The Ideology of Democratic Empire 1 Chapter One Infant Empire: The Ideological Origins of Democratic Empire 44 Chapter Two Democracy, Empire, and the American Founding 83 Chapter Three The Tocquevillean Moment: Settler Expansion and the Democratic Social State 119 Chapter Four The Imperial Self: Individualism, Equality, and Manifest Destiny 161 Chapter Five Race of the Conquering March: Democracy, Civilization, and Slavery 200 Chapter Six William Apess and the Paradox of Settler Sovereignty 243 CODA: Unsettling Democracy 279 BIBLIOGRAPHY 297 iv Introduction The Ideology of Democratic Empire “We seek not the empire of the sword – not the empire of the Inquisition – not the empire of despotism; but the empire of the people – the empire of the rights of man.” Daniel Ullmann, The Course of Empire (1856) “What is a new state formed in the Western deserts of America, if it be not a new colony?” Edward Gibbon Wakefield, England and America (1833) An increasingly pervasive assumption in contemporary American political culture is that democracy and empire are mutually exclusive currents of political thought and institutional development. Indeed, this entrenched assumption crucially inflects official state ideology in contemporary politics. In an attempt to restore a benign image to U.S. foreign policy, President Obama confidently announced in his famed “Cairo Speech” that “America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire.” If official U.S. ideology asserts that America is not an empire precisely because it is a democracy, new left revisionists emerging out of opposition to U.S. intervention in Vietnam and Korea asserted precisely the reverse. For William Appleman Williams, one of the preeminent scholars of American empire, the tragedy of American history is that imperial policies of expansion and conquest have undercut the promise of American liberty. Although “empire as a way of life” constitutes a durable facet of the American political tradition, it represents a separate stream of political development from the emergence and formation of American democracy.1 1 Williams, Empire as Way of Life (Oxford University Press, 1980); and The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (Norton, 1988). The revisionist consensus established by Williams persists among those who seek to condemn U.S. imperial policy on the liberal left today. Especially see Chalmers Johnson, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (MacMillan, 2007). 1 This dissertation challenges this assumption by demonstrating that democracy and empire are mutually constitutive in the historical construction of antebellum political culture. Focusing on how dominant conceptions of popular sovereignty developed in relation to the politics of settler expansion, I provide a conceptual and historical reconstruction