Notes 1 Introduction 1. The Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of American journalism Luther Mott called ‘a third American war with England . a paper war – which raged with surprising fury in the magazines and newspapers for many years’; Mott, American Journalism: A History, 1690–1960 (New York, Macmillan, 1962), 207. 2. Perkins, Prologue to War: England and the United States, 1805–1812 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California, 1968), vii. Although Perkins devoted a chapter to the Paper War in his third volume on Anglo-American diplomacy during the era, Castlereagh and Adams: England and the United States, 1812–1823 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1964), he did not elaborate on literary controversies in the previous volumes. 3. A growing body of scholarly work deals with the growth of American liter- ary nationalism in the early republic. See Catherine O’Donnell Kaplan’s Men of Letters in the Early Republic: Cultivating Forums of Citizenship (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2008); Joseph Eaton, ‘A Federalist Rejoinder to Early Anti-Americanism: Robert Walsh’s An Appeal from the Judgments of Great Britain and the Development of American Literary Nationalism’, Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 132 (April 2008); Marshall Foletta’s Coming to Terms with Democracy (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2001). James D. Drake, The Nation’s Nature: How Continental Presumptions Gave Rise to the United States of America (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2011) explains the rise of American nationalism from American involvement in eighteenth-century European polemics. 4. Daniel Rodgers finds the period between 1880 and 1940 to have been a unique time for Europe to have an impact on America: ‘Between the democratic confidence of the early nineteenth century and the hubris of the late twentieth century, one begins to discern a moment when American politics was peculiarly open to foreign models and imported ideas’; Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 4. For the recent trends and possibilities for globali- zation in the study of the early American republic, see Rosemarie Zaggari, ‘The Significance of the “Global Turn” for the Early Republic’, Journal of the Early Republic, 31 (Spring 2011), 1–37. 5. Perkins, Adams and Castlereagh, 195. 6. For the practice of domestic paper warring in the early republic, see Joanne B. Freeman, Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002). 7. Robert E. Spiller, ‘The Verdict of Sydney Smith,’ American Literature 1 (March 1929), 13. 8. As Matthew Rainbow Hale has noted, ‘More work remains to be done on the external, rather than internal, sources of Americans’ struggle to define their nationality’; Hale, ‘Many Who Wandered in Darkness’: The Contest over 171 172 The Anglo-American Paper War American National Identity, 1795–1798’, Early American Studies, 1 (Spring 2003), 128. For an overview of American history in a global context, see Thomas Bender, A Nation among Nations: America’s Place in World History (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006). 9. Ingersoll, [Some Unknown Foreigner], Inchiquin, The Jesuit’s Letters, During a Late Residence in the United States of America: Being a Fragment of a Private Correspondence Accidentally Discovered in Europe; Containing a Favourable View of the Manners, Literature, and State of Society, of the United States, and a Refutation of Many of the Asperations Cast Upon This Country, By Former Residents and Tourists (New York: I. Riley, 1810), 138. 10. ‘By any criteria the years following the Peace of Ghent . must be considered a time of exceptional growth and development in the United States. Above all . it may be considered a time of the evolution and ripening of American nationalism’; ‘Editors’ Introduction’ by Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris, in George Dangerfield, The Awakening of American Nationalism: 1815–1828 (New York: Harper and Row, 1965, reprint Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1994), viii; ‘The downfall of Federalism – cautious, conservative, Anglophile – helped loose the flood of nationalism’; Bradford Perkins, Castlereagh and Adams: England and the United States, 1812–1823 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1964), 176; ‘The historian seldom finds an epoch more distinctly marked than was that which began about 1815’; William B. Cairns, On the Development of American Literature from 1815 to 1833 with Especial Reference to Periodicals (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1898), 2. Paul C. Nagel’s This Sacred Trust: American Nationality, 1798–1898 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971) uses 1815 as demarcation for chapters (Chapter 1 – ‘Survival: 1798–1815’; Chapter 2 – ‘Search: 1815–1848’). As Nagel explains, only after the ‘miracles of 1815’ could Americans come together: ‘Republican survival appeared so dubious that men considered miraculous the intelligence of a peace treaty and Andrew Jackson’s great victory at New Orleans. News of both prompted scenes of unaccustomed jubilation during February 1815. Suddenly a new phase opened in the development of America’s nationality’ (11, 6). A scholar of American literature noted, ‘The period naturally divides into two sections, marked off by the second war with Great Britain’; Cairns, British Criticisms of American Writings 1783–1815, 6. 11. In his classic account of the origins of American periodical reviewing, William Charvat overlooked American rejoinders to foreign calumnies, missing an important focus of energy for writers in the early republic; Charvat, The Origins of American Critical Thought, 1810–1835 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1936). 12. Ingersoll, Inchiquin’s Letters, 164. 13. For examples of the multi-vocal nature of American nationalism in the early republic, see Andrew W. Robertson, ‘“Look on This Picture . And on This!”: Nationalism, Localism, and Partisan Images of Otherness in the United States, 1787–1820’, American Historical Review, 106 (October 2001); David Waldstreicher, In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes: The Making of American Nationalism 1776–1820 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997); Harlow Sheidley, Sectional Nationalism: Massachusetts Conservative Leaders and the Transformation of America, 1815–1836 (Boston: Northeastern Notes 173 University Press, 1998); Stephanie Kermes, Creating an American Identity: New England, 1789–1825 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). 14. Republican ideology has received more attention from scholars. For exam- ple, Steve Watts and Marie-Jeanne Rossignol have described how American weakness in confrontation with European powers pressured Americans to develop a clearer nationalist vision, these scholars’ primary concern being the progressive, liberal vision of the Republicans; Steven Watts, The Republic Reborn: War and the Making of Liberal America, 1790-1820 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987); Marie-Jeanne Rossignol, The Nationalist Ferment: The Origins of US Foreign Policy, 1789–1812, trans. Lillian A. Parrott (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2004). 15. More than a generation after foundational studies by David Hackett Fischer, James M. Banner, Jr., and Linda Kerber, research on the Federalists is grow- ing. For example, see William C. Dowling, Literary Federalism in the Age of Jefferson: Joseph Dennie and the Port Folio, 1801–1812 (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1999); Marshall Foletta, Coming to Terms with Democracy: Federalist Intellectuals and the Shaping of an American Culture (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2001); Catherine O’Donnell Kaplan, Men of Letters in the Early Republic: Cultivating Forums of Citizenship (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2008); Rachel Hope Cleves, The Reign of Terror in America: Visions of Violence from Anti-Jacobinism to Antislavery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Doron S. Ben- Atar and Barbara B. Oberg (eds), Federalists Reconsidered (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1999). 16. Recent work on American Anglophilia shows that affinities for England allowed for uniquely American expressions. For example, see Elisa Tamarkin, Anglophilia: Deference, Devotion, and Antebellum America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008); Frank Prochaska, The Eagle and the Crown: America and the British Monarchy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008); and Leonard Tennenhouse, The Importance of Feeling English: American Literature and the British Diaspora (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007); Kariann Akemi Yokota, Unbecoming British: How Revolutionary America Became a Postcolonial Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). 17. John Clive, ‘England and America’, Perspectives in American History, 2 (1969), 438. In his classic American Democracy in English Politics 1815–1850 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), David Paul Crook found that images of the United States in British politics were usually self-referential, the United States providing examples to confirm existing predilections rather than to provide guidance or inspire novel inspiration. 18. ‘Memorable Days in America’, Literary Chronicle, 28 (July 12, 1823), 433. 19. R. K. Webb, Harriet Martineau: A Radical Victorian (London: Heinemann, 1960), 172. 20. Charles Caldwell, ‘Review of Inchiquin, The Jesuit’s Letters’, Port-Folio, 5 (April 1811), 305. 21. The classic in the formation of