The Changing Relation between Nation and Empire

It may be helpful here to suggest some of the ways--interpretively--that A Nation Without Borders departs from many historical accounts of this period. The centerpiece of the book is the changing relation between nation and empire in the history of the United States. In this regard, most historians understand a certain sequence: the United States commenced its life as a nation, and over the course of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries emerged as an empire too, as it became involved in overseas conquests and markets. A Nation Without Borders suggests something rather different. It argues that the model of governance inherited from the British was empire; that from the birth of the Republic the United States was a union with significant imperial ambitions on the continent and in the hemisphere, many pushed by slaveholders and their allies; that the United States only became a nation, a nation-state--as many others did--in the midst of a massive political and military struggle in the 1860s; and that the new American nation reconfigured the character of its empire, first in the South and the trans-Mississippi West before reaching overseas.

--Steven Hahn, A Nation Without Borders: The United States and Its World in an Age of Civil Wars, 1830-1910, The Penguin History of the United States (New York: Viking, 2016), 2.

Send More Slaves to America!

It was in 1696 that the House of Commons received a petition objecting to the monopoly of this hateful trade in humans then held by the Royal African Company (RAC). The petition was signed by individuals referring to themselves as "merchants and traders of Virginia and Maryland," who argued that their "plantations" were "capable" of much greater profit and production and if they were "sufficiently supplied with Negroes, they would produce twice the quantity they do now"--indeed, "the shortage of slaves was hindering the development of the tobacco colonies." After wrangling, their prayers were answered, leading to spectacular increases in the number of Africans in chains crossing the Atlantic.

--Gerald Horne, introduction to The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America (New York: New York University Press, 2016), 5.

The Entrepreneurial Class Enters the Slave Trade

The crucial turning point for North America--and arguably, the British Empire as a whole--emerged in 1688 with the so-called Glorious Revolution, which, inter alia, caused the monarchy to retreat and led to the ascendancy of a rising class of merchants. This, in turn, empowered the "private" or "separate" merchants--entrepreneurs--who wished to enter into the lushly lucrative market in enslaved Africans, to the detriment of the Royal African Company.

--Gerald Horne, preface to The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America (New York: New York University Press, 2016), vii-viii.

Responding to the Stamp Act: The British West Indies and the Mainland Colonies Go Their Separate Ways

The British West Indies diverged significantly from the mainland colonies in their response to imperial legislation during the 1760s. For example, Jamaica and Barbados complied with the Stamp Act even though it imposed the greatest tax burden on the Caribbean, not North America. Their submission was mocked by the patriots in North America, where none of the thirteen colonies that rebelled paid stamp duty (except Georgia, briefly). The British West Indies accounted for 78 percent of the colonial stamp revenues.

--Andrew Jackson O'Shaughnessy, An Empire Divided: The American Revolution and the British Caribbean, Early American Studies (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), 81.

George Washington's Empire

In 1783, the year the United States formally gained its independence from Great Britain, George Washington described the newborn republic as a "rising empire." He elaborated a few years later, as the fledgling nation struggled for viability under the restraints imposed by the Articles of Confederation and the constraints imposed by the European powers. America was but an "infant empire," Washington conceded to his former comrade-in-arms, the Marquis de Lafayette. "However unimportant America may be considered at present," he nevertheless predicted, "there will assuredly come a day, when this country will have some weight in the scale of Empires."

--Richard H. Immerman, Empire for Liberty: A History of American Imperialism from Benjamin Franklin to Paul Wolfowitz (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), 1.

The Glorious Revolution

The Glorious Revolution plunged Britain into prolonged warfare with the French Empire, which sought to restore James II to power. To compete with mighty France, the English built a larger military managed by an expanded bureaucracy and funded by heavy new taxes. Prior to 1688, Parliament had held taxes down to keep the Crown weak. After casting its lot with William and Mary, however, Parliament had to fund their military survival. In return Parliament won control over expenditures, which provided new leverage over foreign and military policy, previously Crown prerogatives.

--Alan Taylor, American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804 (New York: W. W. Norton, 2017), 12.

Did Slavery Cause the Civil War?

The current emphasis on slavery as the cause of the Civil War is fraught with problems. It does not clarify the sequence of events, the divisions within the sections, or the policies and actions of the Republican Party. It is these problems that a new interpretation must address.

Clash of Extremes responds to these concerns. It argues that more than any other reason, the evolution of the Northern and Southern economies explains the Civil War.

--Marc Egnal, Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 7-8.