State, nation, and empire: the formation of the US

Abstract

This article discusses the role of state, nation, and empire in the formation and early development of the US. While recent debates on empire have mainly focused on current US foreign policy and global power, this historical analysis shows that the founding and early development of an American nation-state was driven by empire-building. A discussion of the dynamic relationship between empire-building and nation-state formation in Europe generates the general framework for the application of these concepts to the historical development of the US. The entanglement of empire-building and nation-state formation undermines the argument that American political development is somehow exceptional, putting the formation of the US in the context of similar dynamics elsewhere.

Keywords:

• empire
• nation-state
• territorial expansion
• American political development

Notes

1. For those who are looking for a detailed discussion of these concepts, please see Motyl (1999).

2. Steinmetz (2005, p. 342) lists expansionist nation-states as one of four varieties of territorial empires.

3. Though the exact boundaries of federal powers have remained highly contested to this today.

4. Wimmer (2002) sees a deep theoretical connection between the rise of modern, democratic nation-states and practices of ethnic and nationalist exclusions. Since membership in modern political communities was tied to political, civic, and social privileges, it became the center of politicized conflicts over ethnic and national boundaries of the state.

5. The Royal Proclamation of 1763.

6. Article 1, Section 8 indicated that Indians were to be treated like foreign nations, giving Congress the power to ‘regulate Commerce’ with Indian tribes. The commerce clause gave the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over Indian affairs, but the Constitution did not further elaborate the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes. Their presence was recognized, but their status was left ambiguously vague, oscillating between a foreign nation, separate from the American polity, and a subordinate entity, present within the American polity without sharing the privileges of civic equality (Smith 1997, pp. 131–132).

7. Onuf (2007, p. 117) refers to this paradox as the ‘need of state power to promote the seemingly “natural” process of westward expansion’. This paradox became particularly evident in the policy of bringing Louisianans republican government by forcing autocratic territorial government on them.

8. Louisiana (1812), Missouri (1821), Arkansas (1836), Iowa (1846), Minnesota (1858), Kansas (1861), Nebraska (1867), Colorado (1876), North Dakota (1889), South Dakota (1889), Montana (1889), Wyoming (1890), and Oklahoma (1907).