Review of "Modernizing a Slave Economy"

 

Modernizing a Slave Economy: The Economic Vision of the Confederate Nation, John Majewski (Kindle Edition)

 

        Modernizing a Slave Economy, published in 2009 by the University of North Carolina Press, examines the economic vision for an independent Confederate nation.  Majewski demonstrates that southern extremists envisioned industrial expansion, economic independence, and government activism as essential features of the future independent Confederate state.[1]  

 

        He explains that southern boosters “had long cast an envious eye at the wealth and power of northern commercial centers.” (pg. 5) This goal was hampered by the South’s poor soils that did not allow intensive agriculture development due to its acidity and lack of nutrients.[2] This ecological reality, which not fully understood during the 1800s, forced southern planters and farmers to hold large amounts of land in reserve, and practice shifting cultivation.  Shifting cultivation, while the logical response to the ecological conditions of the South, was widely viewed as wasteful and a mark of inferiority and prevented the growth of industry and urban areas.  These three factors led to the development of the southern economic thought.  To combat the perceived backwardness of the South, southern extremists pushed for increased government intervention in the economy and a powerful central state.  This powerful central state was necessary, according to southern extremists, to close the gap between the Northern industrial and urban centers and those in the South.  Majewski demonstrates how southern boosters attempted to implement these policies in the South in the pre-bellum era, but met with mixed and limited success, and these failures led them to advocate, ever more forcefully for secession from the Union.  It was only through disunion and independence, they argued, the South could reach its true economic potential.  He demonstrates how these ideas and approaches carried over into the Civil War with the South’s state-owned industries and extreme economic control during that conflict.  

 

        Overall, Modernizing a Slave Economy provides a good examination of the economic vision of southern extremists, who, contrary to popular opinion, viewed slavery and modernity as compatible and desirable.  Majewski further demonstrates that southern extremists with extreme hubristic arrogance assumed they were the key to the world economy and felt assured of European intervention in support of their independence.  This false sense of security led them to insouciantly begin a war with a much stronger opponent.  This book, while very interesting and informative, can be challenging to follow at times, and one could wish for a more significant discussion of how slavery was used in southern industries during the pre-war era.  The book can be challenging to read, particularly the first chapter, but it provides a good insight into southern economic thought and why they embarked on an, ultimately futile, war with a more powerful enemy.  

---

[1] Majewski uses the term “southern extremists” to describe the proslavery Southerners who aggressively defended slavery in the Antebellum era. (pg. 13)

[2] The South generally had ultisols, with a few exceptions, white the north was predominantly alfisols. 

Update

 

I am posting this to up date you all on my plans for this blog, I am intending to start a book review series.  My book reviews will be short, between 350-450 words, to keep things to the point and to practice keeping my writing tight and practice keeping myself within a set number of words.  If this proves to be a little too short, I will slightly lengthen the reviews.  I will work to get one review up per month in addition to the longer posts about empire.  These reviews will cover, what the book is about, its strengths and weaknesses, and my general reactions.  These reviews will primarily cover history books, but I may do fictional literature as well.  If there are any books you would like me to cover, please let me know, and I will be happy to look at them as my schedule allows. 

Research Trip Report!

 A few weeks ago I took a research trip to the Western US to conduct research for my PhD, and visited four states, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, as most of the troops that fought in the beginning of the Philippine War were state volunteer units raised in the Western states for the Spanish American War. The trip went quite well, and I have was able to view a number of excellent collections that will provide useful for my dissertation. Of particular interest for me are seven collections that contain numerous letters that cover these men's deployments in the Philippines. Such letters help provide and insight to the conflict and help me discuss the personal aspects of Americans' imperial war (one of the collections had a twenty page letter defending the US control of the Philippines to an anti-imperialist friend in the US).  

While in the above Western states I did have some time for other activities while in Colorado, and I will share some of those pictures below.  Needless to say this is going to be a lighter post, but never the less enjoyable I hope!

The first pictures are from Golden Canyon State Park in Colorado: 

meadow in the Rocky Mountains

The mountain meadows trail

Above is a view of the Continental divide

Another view of the Continental Divide

Panoramic view of Frazier's Meadow

View from the meadows trail

I can not express the beauty of this park and the views there, this photographs do not do any justice to the real thing. I recommend visiting this park if you are ever in Colorado. 

Some photos from around Denver:

Denver Union Station

I love these old signs!

Hiking trail along Cherry Creek, old railroad bridge

Buffalo statue, which I really like, at Colorado History

The "Unsinkable" Molly Brown House:

I like the polar bear

This ceiling is pressed paper

Her husband's study and desk

Starwell glass window in the star well

The Forney Transportation Museum in Denver:

My father has some of these models

And I have some of these!

The interior of the museum, Big Boy locomotive in the back, one of the largest steam locomotives ever built

Another view of the interior

Traction Engine, I love traction engine they are just neat, I love most steam powered vehicles as they are just fascinating

Some pictures of flying into Lincoln, Nebraska. This photos show the legacy of the Land Ordinance of 1785, which set up a standardized system to survey public land and created a system whereby settlers could puchers the title of said land in the west. That is why the west is so often filled with giant squares! It is also a legacy of the United State's settler colonialism, and at some point in the near future I will discuss what exactly settler colonialism and how it is different, and yet similar to more traditional imperialism.

The large squares are a legacy of American public land survey which was used until the closing of Western settlement. At some point I will have a blog post that discusses how imerpal powers used such methods to not only understand the territory they conquered but also to impose their control and enforce Western ideas of land ownership and methods.  

 I hope that you found this interesting and a light but enjoyable read!

Possibilities to Improve the American Federal Government

    As anyone who follows politics or the news knows, the United States has had political instability over the past several years; further, the American federal government has had issues operating and debates over the fairness of the American political system. In this post, the first dealing with politics, I will suggest several changes to the federal government and our electoral systems. These changes might help restore faith in the American system and improve the political stability of the United States and allow the United States federal government to be more effective and govern the nation. The first portion of the federal government I shall make proposals for is the legislative branch. Followed by the judiciary, then the executive, elections in general, and other sundry issues.

 

Suggestions for the legislature

The Senate with unequal representation is un-amendable according to the Constitution. I suggest the fact that California has 40 million residents while Wyoming has only 500,000 is the entire reason the Founding Fathers created unequal representation in the Senate. The only suggestion I have relating to the Senate deals with the filibuster. My suggestion is to restore it to a speaking action, as it used to be[i].  This would ensure that the minority in the Senate could stop something they fundamentally disagreed with and ensure that those laws that are not fundamentally opposed will be able to be moved forward through the Senate for an up or down vote. The filibuster should strictly be reserved for proposals that the political minority deemed extremely necessary to undertake such a drastic and difficult action[ii].  

Now to tackle the House of Representatives. I only have one significant suggestion for the House, expanding its size. Presently the House of Representatives is capped at 435 members has been this way since 1929. While the Founders' original plan of one representative per 10,000 citizens would create a legislature of well over 1000 members, which would make it impossible for the House to function.  Due to this there should be a cap on the size of the House of Representatives to ensure it can continue to function[iii]. Presently with 435 members, the House has fallen behind our other peer democracies in size; for example, the German legislature's lower House has 709 members, in the British House of Commons has 650. I would suggest that we should increase the House to 855 members as this would do two things. It would give more power to those states with a larger population, as the Founders intended, in both the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. It would also lower the number of constituents per representative, which would help these members serve the United States citizens better. An increased House will also allow for a more diverse set of individuals to be part of the legislative process, which would improve the laws our nation enacts and provide for a more comprehensive number of voices in the lawmaking process. 

 

Suggestions for the American judiciary

The number of circuit court judges should be increased as has been repeatedly suggested and requested by legal scholars and judges, and other members of the American judiciary. This is a simple process that should take place over a certain number of years to ensure that the judicial branch can expand organically and continue to function without growing pains.  While this might not make everyone happy, it is far better to intelligently and organically expand the lower-level Federal courts than simply increase their size all at once. A moderately paced increase would allow Congress to react to issues that arise and redirect the size of courts as needed. 

The geographic size of Federal Circuit Courts should also be reviewed. As has been suggested about the 9th Circuit Court, it might be necessary to split up circuit courts to decrease the caseload. The nation should not be afraid to increase or decrease circuit courts as needed. 

In my opinion, the size of the Supreme Court is perfectly fine at nine justices. However, I have no issue with increasing the size of the court. If this were to be done, it should be made a Constitutional amendment that permanently fixes the court's size. If we are to expand the size of and Supreme Court, it should be no larger than fifteen members, as I think that is the largest practical size that the Supreme Court can function with. If we do decide to increase the size of the Supreme Court, I would suggest that every presidential term, a president can nominate two justices to fill the additional seats in addition to any vacancies on seats that have already exist. This will ensure that the legitimacy of the courts' expansion and that expansion is not viewed as flagrantly political.   Constitutional amendment would prevent court-packing in the future and maintain the court's integrity. I do not believe in term limits for the courts because they are quite frankly unconstitutional. It is useful for justices to be completely independent of the political system proper even though courts are political to an extent[iv]. 

The final suggestion I have for the judiciary ties in with the legislature. At all levels, including Supreme Court Justices, judges should be required to notify the president eighteen months in advance of their retirement or resignation. This would allow the president to nominate a replacement and will enable the legislature plenty of time to vet the nominee and will enable the nominee, if confirmed, to quickly fill the empty seat and allow the judiciary to continue to function at maximum efficiency. The president should be required to forward a nominee to the Senate within six months of receiving the notice of retirement or resignation. The Senate committee that reviews such nominations would have four months to conduct a complete investigation of the nominee and an additional month to conduct live hearings and hold a vote. This would allow more than adequate time for a nominee to be vetted by the Senate committee. If the committee forwards the nomination to the full Senate, the Senate will be required to act upon the nomination within eight weeks. This would allow for more than adequate time for the Senate to ensure it can adequately vet any nominee and bring forward a vote promptly to ensure that vacancies within the judiciary are limited. There can be some specific rules that state when the Senate does not have to act upon presidential nominees, such as within a specific time frame close to presidential elections, say 4 to 6 months. A timeline such as the above will allow the speedy and efficient filling of vacancies in the judicial branch and create a framework for everyone to work.

Other suggestions

One of the contentious issues right now is stated for the District of Columbia. It should be clear that constitutionally this would be an issue as the Constitution strongly implies that the Federal Capital should not become a state. Furthermore, the 23rd Amendment, which gives electoral votes to DC, would have to be repealed if the District of Columbia became a state. To fix this issue and avoid the constitutional problem District of Columbia should be counted as part of Maryland's representational purposes in Congress. They get to elect their voting representative to the House and vote for Maryland Senators. This would require no constitutional changes and would allow the citizens living in District Columbia to have a say in the federal government and ensure DC remains a separate enclave that allows its unique roles and responsibilities to be continued without interruption.

Puerto Rico should get statehood. We have owned Puerto Rico for hundreds and twenty-two years; it is high time that we grant them the statehood they so richly deserve and are now asked for. We should also grant statehood to any other territory that desires it.

I would eliminate primaries and return more power to the political party's leadership. While this will make it harder for disruptors to get elected, this is not entirely a bad thing. While it is often believed that more democracy is better democracy, this is not always the case. Grassroots funding, for example, has created more democracy but is not created better democracy as being an extreme brings in more money than being a moderate. Furthermore, I think grassroots funding will offset the power that political parties will have in selecting who runs by allowing disruptors to get enough money to compete in general elections against party-sponsored opponents. Instead of the winner taking all the electoral college, we would suggest awards electoral votes via congressional district with the popular vote winner for the state getting the two senatorial electors. This would be much closer to what the Founding Fathers intended for the electoral college, to begin with, and would also federalize the present selection even more. If congressional districts rewarded electoral votes, it would give Republicans a reason to campaign in blue states and Democrats to campaign in red states. This would allow voters in every state to influence the presidential election more than they do now and preserve the federal character of a presidential election.

Further, elections should be Federally mandated paid holidays (within the usual exemptions: police, doctors, etc.) to encourage and allow people to vote, and all elections should be held on the same day. This is not the case presently: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-vote/. Having everything on the same day (within reason) will ensure that everyone who desires to vote does so. We should make voting as easy as possible for those who choose to exercise that civic duty.

The final suggestion I have would require amending the Constitution, extending terms. Presently, with Representatives being elected every two years, it creates pressure upon them to constantly raise money and spend time away from Washington and requires them to continuously seek more attention to raise money to remain in office. While we should expect our representatives to come back to the districts to interact with their constituents increasing the length of congressional terms will help remove some of this pressure and focus on legislating and seeking solutions for problems. I would suggest it might be good to raise house terms from two years to four, presidential terms from four years to six, and senatorial terms six years to eight. This, I do not think, is necessarily required; I think it might be a good idea, but I do not believe this is necessary. Increasing the House's size and set out a framework for nominating justices will resolve many of the issues our government now faces and restore legitimacy and faith in our system.

Conclusion

I hope you found my suggestions interesting. I think most of these are reasonably good ideas (they are mine, after all!) that will help our system function better. Please, if you have any suggestions, questions, or comments, please put them below. I am more than happy to discuss these ideas. I do not claim that they are perfect or entirely correct, but I think they generally would work, and everyone of good faith in this nation could support them. I would have a short post to your coming up about how I will do book reviews on this blog as I intend to try to start doing some of them doing some of those soon. Until next time I hope you had a good time reading this.

---

[i] In other words, if you really want to stop a bill in the Senate you will have to go through the physical pain and annoyance of literally talking for hours on end, and the careful coordinated action required to sustain a filibuster.

[ii] If you have to go through the pain and logistical issues above you are more likely to compromise and less likely to opposing things for purely political ends.

[iii] Yes I know that China’s legislature has almost 3,000 members, but we all know its just a rubber stamp for who ever is the head of state in China.

[iv] And they always will be, as they do deal with political questions, that is point of life tenure: to help insulate judges from the whims of the people, who can (and have) supported really bad ideas.

Race and Empire

     While in Scotland, I was asked, "because of racism in the United States, did that lead to empire?" In this blog post, I will seek to answer that question, but I will also answer the larger question embedded in that, which is "does racism lead to empire?" This is essentially a chicken or the egg question; in other words, you need both to have an empire. Without racism, empire is much more difficult, and without empire, racism makes much less sense. Of course, you can have an empire without racism and racism without an empire, but this was much less common during the latter parts of the nineteenth century.

    Before I discuss if racism in the US lead to empire, it is essential to look at the justifications of empire throughout history.  To develop and hold empires, nations need to have a justification for the conquest of distant peoples. As the world moved into the modern era, nations that created empires, formal and informal ones, need to justify why they had such empires beyond might make right. There was no need for justification for ancient empires beyond the fact that they had the military capacity to dominate their rivals. For example, Rome never had to develop particularly complex reasons to explain why they should rule places like modern-day France, Spain, and England. For Rome, their justification for empire was their ability to have an empire. Although it is somewhat more complicated than this, this is essentially the justification Rome had for its empire. However, with the spread of Christianity and eventually the spread of enlightenment ideas, nations needed to develop more complicated justifications for why it was permissible for them to conquer distant lands and impose their will upon these peoples. Although God's will was initially sufficient to explain such actions, particularly in the early parts of European colonialism, as the Enlightenment gained hold, new ideas had to be developed. The first justifications beyond God's will that developed, particularly for the Americans, was that the native peoples were not using their land correctly, which justified Europeans taking lands of the native peoples. This idea slowly morphed into the racialist arguments for imperialism. The colonized peoples were inherently inferior in various ways to the colonizing power due to elements of their racial ancestry. 

    Without these arguments, it would make it much more difficult for empires to justify their existence to the people of the metropole and other nations. So, without racism to explain why European powers had an empire, it would make it difficult for countries such as Britain, France, or Germany to justify to other nations their aggressive expansion around the world and justify to their people the costs associated with empire. Furthermore, without racial explanations on why they were justified in developing an empire, it would have been hard for the colonizing powers to legitimatize their rule to the native peoples that had conquered. While the indigenous peoples may have rejected these racialist arguments, the colonizing powers put forward, the imperial powers still needed an argument to justify their rule to the conquered people. So, as it can be seen, without racism, empire would have been difficult to justify, but without empire, racism itself would have had a difficult time developing. It should be noted that racism and empire can exist without each other, but our modern concepts of what race is developed with the rise of modern European colonial empires—these concepts fed off each other, allowing each to grow and thrive. 

    As demonstrated above race and empire are deeply linked, and this is no different with the United States and its empire. However, race was a double-edged sword in America's imperial ventures. This was mainly due to the unique character of the United States' imperialist ventures before the Spanish-American War, when a surge in nationalism created an opportunity for imperialists to seize a topical empire. From the founding of the independent United States, America's imperial ventures had been confined to the regions adjacent to the United States that would be assimilated into the United States. The dominant thinking of the time era was, the United States Constitution did not allow for colonial territories that would not eventually become states within the American union. This unique history contributed to the heightened importance of race and America's imperial ventures when compared to contemporary European powers. While racism created the justifications needed for Empire, it also provided a convenient anti-imperialist tool to attack the United States' imperial ventures. 

    To understand why this was the case, I will explain the predominant racial theories of the late nineteenth century. It was commonly believed that different races held different capacities for governance, work, morals, and civilizational development. These levels of civilizational development depended upon the race of the individuals of that region. These levels were part of a hierarchy that determined which groups were more civilized and more developed and which groups were more barbaric and backward. Scientific ideas argued that white Anglo-Saxons were the peak of racial development globally and that Anglo-Saxons were the most capable of civilized development, self-governance, and moral ability. Below whites were various other races of people with differing levels of proficiency for civilization as well self-governance. At the bottom of development were those deemed of "negro” ancestry. In addition, it was believed that each race was suited to specific regions and climates. White Anglo-Saxons were suited for the temperate zones around the world but not the tropics, while those of darker skin were suited for the tropical zones but not template. It was believed that while whites could live in tropical zones, it was thought whites would eventually degenerate and become like the native dark-skinned inhabitants of these regions.[i] However, it was impossible for nonwhites were brought to the temperate zones to be improved by their time there. This belief dictated to Americans how their nation was to expand; it was to expand into the temperate zones and not the tropics. These racialist beliefs directed American expansion. Thus, race was both a catalyzing and limiting factor for American growth. Many Americans widely believed that the United States should expand into the temperate zones but not the tropics. Due to this belief, the United States expanded westward across the North American continent (and sought to acquire Canada), conquering and subjugating native peoples in its way in the temperate zones and did not expand beyond these regions until the late nineteenth century. 

    The United States expanded westward not only because of Manifest Destiny but also due to racial considerations held that whites could only thrive in the temperate zones. As the United States expanded West, it refused possible territorial acquisitions in regions that were deemed tropical. The first example of this is Mexico. Most Americans are familiar with the Texas Revolution and the subsequent American annexation of Texas, and the war with Mexico. However, few know that the Mexican states that border Texas were also in revolt against Mexico.[ii] Had the United States so decided, it is likely these regions would have welcomed annexation, however as these regions were in the tropics and whites were not suited for the tropics, the United States did not seek more territory at the end of the Mexican War. Further, in the post-Civil War era, the United States had the opportunity to annex what is now the US Virgin Islands from Denmark; however, the United States again refused because these islands were in the tropics. Thus, race inhibited American territorial growth. Had race not been an issue, the United States would likely be somewhat larger than today, possibly including the Mexican regions that border the United States and Cuba.[iii]  

    Thus, race is extraordinarily important American expansion, probably more so than most other empires. So, the answer to the question that was asked of me, "did racism lead to US expansion" the answer is both yes and no. Race determined those regions that the United States would seek to annex and settle while at the same time inhibiting American growth in those regions deemed inhospitable to the white race.[iv]  

---

[i] This belief was part of the reason to justify the semi-colonial status imposed on Southern whites during Reconstruction. Northern whites, particularly Republicans, argued that it was necessary to completely rebuild southern society in the aftermath of the Civil War because white Southerners lived in a semi-tropical environment that had caused them to degenerate requiring Federal intervention to fix the South. It should be noted that many Southerners, particularly the wealthy slave owners, agreed with these assessments, at least about the poor Southern whites.

[ii] These states are specifically Nuevo León, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas.  

[iii] Indeed, these beliefs proved to be so strong that it was only due to the war with Spain that finally led to the annexation of Hawaii. Further, only a joint congressional resolution allowed the United States to annex Hawaii as the pro annexationist were short by three votes to approve the annexation treaty.

[iv] These views quickly reasserted themselves in the immediate aftermath of the Philippine War as opportunities at annex Panama and Haiti were passed up. This was, in part, likely due to the exposure of questionable American actions during the war, which included torture, that seemed to prove the belief that the topics caused whites (men in particular) to degenerate.

What is an Empire, and is the United States one? Part Two

 

I apologize for taking so long to get this post up, I was working on the first chapter of my dissertation, and I have been too tired to work on this blog. 

Now that the definition of what an empire is has been established, it can now be determined whether or not the United States has ever been or is presently an empire.  Before we continue a brief recap, the definition of empire that I use is the following: an empire is a political entity that has direct formal control over multiple regions that are not equal with, nor intended to be assimilated into the metropole AND/OR a state that exerts considerable military, economic, or political influence over multiple regions or states who may also be beholden to the dominant state through treaties or economic assistance.  Thus, there are two types of empire, the formal empire with direct political control over non-metropole territories or a state that exerts indirect control over multiple areas.  Remember that not every empire will fully fit into this description.  

 So, did the United States fit into either the formal and informal empire category?  The answer is yes.  The United States has had both an informal and, to a certain extent, a formal empire.  It is important to note that while the United States has always been both a formal and informal empire, it is an informal empire is always dwarfed the United States' traditional colonial possessions.

 First, let's tackle the informal empire category.  Does, or has the US ever exerted a considerable military, economic or political influence over multiple regions or states.  The answer here is clearly yes.  The United States is one of the dominant political, economic, and military power in the world.  A casual reading of international news can demonstrate this without providing examples (I will, though).  American economic and political influence extends well beyond American borders; indeed, many states are dependent upon the American economy.  Two examples of this are Mexico and Canada members of the North American free-trade Association.  For both Mexico and Canada, the United States is the leading trading partner.  Thus, their economies are tied to the United States, and their political interests to a certain extent depend upon American goodwill.  Although these nations can and do have interests that do not entirely align with the United States and do not always do what the United States wants, American interests still bind these nations.  They would never do anything that would seriously jeopardize their relationship with the United States.  

 Mexico's dependence upon the United States is an excellent example of this; the US is Mexico's largest trading partner, accounting for close to half of all exports in 2008 and more than half of all imports in 2009.  For the US, Mexico is the third-largest trading partner after Canada and China as of June 2010.  Without trading with the United States, Mexico would face a serious economic impact and thus follows policies relating to drugs that the United States prefers to appease the United States and prevent any political frictions that could adversely affect the economy.  Besides Mexico and Canada, there are other examples of America's informal empire close to its shores.  Many nations in the Americas depend upon the US economy to function.  Remittances of immigrants from the US to the Caribbean and Central and South American nations are a good example of this economic and political power that the United States wields.  A 2004 study found that over 60% of the 16.5 million Latin American-born adults who resided in the United States at the time of the survey regularly sent money home.  The remittances sent by these 10 million immigrants were transmitted via more than 100 million individual transactions per year and amounted to an estimated $30 billion during 2004.  These factors drive the policies of these nations and their economies; thus, the United States has a great deal of impact and power over these smaller and often impoverished nations.  

 In addition to remittances, United States also gives these nations and other nations economic and political aid to help strengthen their economy and governments.  As part of these aid packages, these nations are required to implement reforms and actions favored by the United States, increasing the United States' is influence and power over these nations.  That is not to say that these reforms and actions demanded by the United States are nefarious.  Indeed, many are good such as requiring greater governmental transparency and freedom of the press.  However, whether these demands are reasonable or not is beside the point; the fact that the United States can demand these things from other nations and get them demonstrates how the United States has an informal empire of which it controls.

 Outside of economic and political control, the United States exerts informal military control over nations as well.  Many states throughout the world depend upon American political-military support to defend themselves from outside aggression.  The countries most Americans are probably most familiar with this fact are our NATO allies.  

 Although these allies maintain their militaries that are somewhat capable of independent operations, these nations ultimately rely upon the United States to guarantee their protection from outside attacks.  And it is not just our European allies to rely on this; Japan, having a security guarantee from the United States, depends upon this.  South Korea, Australia, and even Vietnam depend upon the United States to guarantee their nation from outside aggression.  Of course, not all at the same level; Japan, for example, has a competent military, and Vietnam as a reasonably large one.  However, these nations still required American support as a great power to counterbalance possible Chinese aggression.  These nations can likely fight without the United States, but it would much prefer to have the United States as an ally and guardian to prevent any aggression against them in the first place.

 Here, you see American influence impact these nations, for countries like Japan and Australia and to a lesser extent, our NATO allies are constantly debating about military policy to appease American demands for their governments to defend themselves militarily.  Ultimately without the United States, most of these nations would be unable to, but they follow policies to ensure the United States will continue to support them.  Probably the best example of this is Taiwan.  While the United States does not have a formal relationship with Taiwan or a formal agreement to protect Taiwan in case of attack, the United States still guarantees Taiwan's independence.  To ensure, and appease, American demands for self-defense, Taiwan pursues military policies that the United States desires Taiwan to implement.  As the United States has demanded that Taiwan to have more asymmetric defenses to protect itself from invasion from China, Taiwan's military has sought to buy more asymmetric defenses to appease American demands.  Here again, you can see America's informal empire at work, foreign nations essentially building their defense policies around the United States' demands and ideas.

 I think it is clear from the above the United States has a fairly extensive informal empire.  The above examples are just limited thumbnail sketches of US influence in those states mentioned.  On top of the political and economic influence the United States wields, it should be noted that the United States' social power is also extensive.  Many American found companies, like McDonald’s for example, operate in places as far as part as the United Kingdom and Japan.  It should also be mentioned that American popular culture widely affects the world, how many people worldwide listen to American music and buy blue jeans, and how deeply American political ideals have become established in many nations. 

 What I discussed already is quite clear the United States maintains a relatively extensive informal empire.  The question is does the United States maintain or never had a formal empire?  The answer here is yes; the United States has had been to an extent continues to have, a formal empire.  The United States' formal empire has always been relatively small compared to its informal one, but it did exist.  At its height, the United States controlled the Philippines, Panama Canal Zone, Cuba (for about four years), Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and other uninhabited island possessions.[i]  It is a small formal empire, but a formal one nevertheless as none of these territories were ever intended to become states.[ii]  Thus, the United States did have a formal empire at one point in time, and Americans thought of it(approvingly) as such an empire.  However, whether the US continues to have a formal empire today is a bit more complicated.  While historically none of the territories acquired by the United States were intended to become states, such is not the case today.  The territories maintained have been given the option to become states or achieve independence; most of these territories have rejected both options.  For example, American Samoa was given the opportunity of independence, statehood, or joining with the nation of Samoa; and they have rejected all three and continue to elect to maintain the territorial status.  So does a little bit more complicated today than in the past.  

 There are other, arguable forms of colonial possession is the United States, such as Native American reservations and the District of Columbia.  I can't entirely agree with this position, but it can be argued.  But again, these are complicated.  For example, Native Americans have the right to vote in both state and national elections even though tribal reservations are de jour independent entities that are only subject to federal law and not state law even when their borders fall entirely within the state, such as the Flathead Indian Reservation.  The children of the District of Columbia residents have their tuition paid for by the federal government to any state university in the country.[iii] 

It should be noted that the District of Columbia is a unique and Constitutionally defined status that differentiates it from US territories like Puerto Rico.  So even in these territorial possessions, whether or not the United States continues to operate as a formal empire is a little bit more complicated.  I would personally argue, and I think the evidence suggests that considering the second-class status of those who live in territorial possessions, the United States still maintains a formal colonial empire.  However, I want to stress that outside Puerto Rico, there have not historically been significant objections to the continued colonial status of these territories. 

 The final and unique aspect of American imperialism, are Compacts of Free Association.  This status is something that is between a direct formal territorial control in a more indirect informal influence.  Three nations are presently Association states, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, all former Pacific Trust Territories.  The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands was a United Nations trusteeship administered by the United States from 1951 to 1986 (to 1994 for Palau), created from the holdings Japan seceded at the end of the Second World War.  Under these agreements, the United States provides a great deal of economic assistance along with military protection.  These Pacific nations can actively participate in all Office of Insular Affairs, the agency that administers US territories, technical assistance activities (which they do).  Further, they receive access to many US domestic programs, such as Pell Grants, disaster response under the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The United States Post Office serves these areas as a domestic destination and is the Postal Service for these nations.  Moreover, these nations are also represented by the United States and the International Frequency Registration Board of the International Telecommunication Union. 

Furthermore, the COFA allows the United States to operate armed forces in Compact areas and demand land for operating bases, subject to negotiation, and excludes the militaries of other countries without US permission.  The quasi-colonial relationship is further reinforced by the ability of the citizens of these nations to live and work in the United States indefinitely without requiring visas and American citizens to do the same.  A privilege that is not extended to any other nations in the world, including our closest allies.  And while the Compact nations are outside the customs area of the United States, their products are mainly duty-free for imports.  Additionally, citizens of the associated states may serve in America's armed forces, and there is a high level of military enlistment by Compact citizens.  For example, in 2008, the Federated States of Micronesia had a higher per-capita enlistment rate than any US state and had more than five times the national per-capita average of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.  All of this mirrors how their colonial overlords treated the people and territories of empires. 

 Although this may sound more like an informal influence, these nations have far more closely intertwined with, and behold too, the American federal government more than any other independent nations in the world.  In reality, this relationship is a quasi-colonial status, reinforced by the fact that the United States has complete control over these nations' international affairs, except declarations of war.  Further, in the United Nations, these three states consistently vote the way the United States does in almost all matters.  [iv]

 I think it is clear from the above; the United States has been an empire for a significant portion of its existence.  Indeed, for most of American history, Americans have conceived of their nation as an empire.  Some of this was more rhetorical points, such as when the Founding Fathers further the United States as an "empire of liberty." However, following the Spanish-American War and up to the mid-twentieth century, Americans conceived their nation as a true empire on par with Rome or Britain.  The answer to the question is the United States empire answer is clearly yes.

 The United States has operated both a formal, although small formal empire, a much larger and think far more influential informal empire.  Again, I would like to stress that being an empire does not make the United States evil, or any nation evil is merely a state of existence is very common throughout human history.  Not every aspect of America's informal empire has been developed for nefarious reasons or planned out by the American government for its people.  In many cases, the United States' empire has grown due to its economic strength and the appeal of its institutions and ideas.  However, while large amounts of the American Empire were likely accidental, not all of it was what is.  Like empires before it and empires that will follow it, the United States has used brute force, corruption, and other nefarious means to expand its power.

 Thank you for reading this; I hope you all found it insightful and interesting.  Again, I apologize for not getting this up earlier. Writing my dissertation takes a front seat to this.  I should not have any significant disruptions in writing for this blog for the rest of the year, but I will try to inform you all of such disruptions if I do.  The next post will be about race and empire; specifically, a question that another Ph.D. student asked me while I was in Scotland "because of racism in the United States, did that lead to empire?" I was unable to answer this question while I was there because the next week, we went into lockdown before I could talk to him again, so I will answer that here and touch upon race and other empires as well.  Not to give too much away, race is important, but it complicates the narrative empire.

 

 

 

Note: Puerto Rico is the only major US territory, and it has the largest population, all other territories are significantly smaller than Wyoming, our least populous state, with a population of around 575,000.  Excluding Puerto Rico, Guam has the largest population at approximately 161,000.  Again, excluding Puerto Rico, US territories have a collective population of just under 400,000. 

---

[i] The United States ruled Cuba for four years following the Spanish-American War.  After they had written a constitution, they were granted independence per the terms of the Treaty of Paris (which ended the war with Spain) and the Teller Amendment.

[ii] Slight exception here in Puerto Rico; there has always been a debate about whether or not Puerto Rico should be granted statehood since the United States acquired this territory in the Spanish-American War.  Although Americans of the turn of the last century indeed would NOT have agreed with making Puerto Rico a state, statehood has always been a perennial political issue in both Puerto Rico and the United States mainland since its acquisition. 

[iii] I am not talking about student loans; these are straight tuition payments that do not have to pay back to the federal government.

[iv] This quasi-colonial status has been renewed by these nations at the beginning of the century.

Update

 I apologize for not getting a new post up this month, I have been working on my first chapter for my dissertation, and has left me very little time for myself. I will get a post up in April. Again I apologize for the delay.