{"title":"早期帝国共和国:Michael A. Blaakman、Emily Conroy-Krutz 和 Noelani Arista 编著的《从美国革命到美墨战争》(评论)","authors":"Kevin Kokomoor","doi":"10.1353/soh.2024.a932566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>The Early Imperial Republic: From the American Revolution to the U.S.-Mexican War</em> ed. by Michael A. Blaakman, Emily Conroy-Krutz and Noelani Arista <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Kevin Kokomoor </li> </ul> <em>The Early Imperial Republic: From the American Revolution to the U.S.-Mexican War</em>. Edited by Michael A. Blaakman, Emily Conroy-Krutz, and Noelani Arista. Early American Studies. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2023. Pp. vi, 339. $55.00, ISBN 978-0-8122-5278-1.) <p>There are several reasons, according to Michael A. Blaakman and Emily Conroy-Krutz, that when one thinks of “empire,” or “imperialism,” one does not necessarily think of the earliest years of the United States of America. The connection might be there by the late nineteenth century, but not the late eighteenth. There are several ideological and historiographical reasons for such scholarly hesitation, obfuscation, or downright exclusion, as the editors draw out in the very important introduction to <em>The Early Imperial Republic: From the American Revolution to the U.S.-Mexican War</em>. The early republic was a place of exceptionalism and triumphalism. It was also weak, and the idea of an empire did not mesh well with the idea of a republic. Lastly, each possible vector of American imperialism is usually pigeonholed in specific historical subfields that make rendering a larger narrative difficult. It is for these combined reasons that the early republic has escaped most recent debates on the nature of empire.</p> <p><em>The Early Imperial Republic</em> offers to connect the dots: to chart American imperial ambitions from the earliest years of the country’s history to better understand chapters in the Civil War era and to “reframe scholarly understandings of the new republic” (p. 13). To do so, this collection’s impressively varied essays are divided into three categories. The first is largely continental, and focuses on sovereignty. Here the contributors grapple with the ways the <strong>[End Page 608]</strong> federal government sought an orderly expansion of the nation’s borders, how interested local and Native groups either enabled or contested those efforts, and how both the problems and the solutions look a lot like “familiar imperial forms and practices” consistent with traditional European-style empires (p. 18). The second section expands in a noncontiguous way, to Mexico as well as to Hawaii and Africa, in an effort to highlight the global nature of American imperial ambitions. The third section transitions to a more intellectual look at how various American groups, from the Seminole Wars to the Mexican- American War, conceived of, reacted to, and even resisted the United States’ imperial ambitions, as the final three essays suggest.</p> <p>In the collection’s introduction, Blaakman and Conroy-Krutz emphasize that the volume is not bound together by one specific idea of what is “imperial.” It suggests no paradigm shift, no alternative language, no new unifying definition. In fact, the essays that follow interchange the terms <em>imperial</em>, <em>colonial</em>, and <em>settler colonial</em> regularly. They follow various Native groups, merchants, missionaries, slaves, and abolitionists across the Atlantic and Pacific, attempting to connect various disparate fields and helping prove an important introductory point about the confused, overlapping, and fragmented nature of the field.</p> <p>While this variety is indeed the volume’s great strength, it is not necessarily borne out equally across the sections. In fact, as Blaakman and Conroy-Krutz acknowledge in their introduction, if there is a best-known imperialism during the early republic, it is the continental variety—settler colonialism—which is best articulated in the collection’s first section. At six chapters, this section is the largest one and is twice as big as the third section. Despite an attempt to create a sprawling framework with equal attention given to global and intellectual perspectives, the sheer number of contributions seems to suggest that while early American imperialism went lots of places and involved lots of people, the trans-Appalachian West was its home.</p> <p>While the editors do not dwell on definitions, either for <em>imperialism</em> or for what constitutes the <em>early republic</em> chronologically, the loose framework established in the introduction otherwise works well. It allows <em>The Early Imperial Republic</em> to go wherever the contributors like, and they go in all sorts of intriguing, even surprising, directions. Essays move from the...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":45484,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Early Imperial Republic: From the American Revolution to the U.S.-Mexican War ed. by Michael A. Blaakman, Emily Conroy-Krutz and Noelani Arista (review)\",\"authors\":\"Kevin Kokomoor\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/soh.2024.a932566\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>The Early Imperial Republic: From the American Revolution to the U.S.-Mexican War</em> ed. by Michael A. Blaakman, Emily Conroy-Krutz and Noelani Arista <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Kevin Kokomoor </li> </ul> <em>The Early Imperial Republic: From the American Revolution to the U.S.-Mexican War</em>. Edited by Michael A. Blaakman, Emily Conroy-Krutz, and Noelani Arista. Early American Studies. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2023. Pp. vi, 339. $55.00, ISBN 978-0-8122-5278-1.) <p>There are several reasons, according to Michael A. Blaakman and Emily Conroy-Krutz, that when one thinks of “empire,” or “imperialism,” one does not necessarily think of the earliest years of the United States of America. The connection might be there by the late nineteenth century, but not the late eighteenth. There are several ideological and historiographical reasons for such scholarly hesitation, obfuscation, or downright exclusion, as the editors draw out in the very important introduction to <em>The Early Imperial Republic: From the American Revolution to the U.S.-Mexican War</em>. The early republic was a place of exceptionalism and triumphalism. It was also weak, and the idea of an empire did not mesh well with the idea of a republic. Lastly, each possible vector of American imperialism is usually pigeonholed in specific historical subfields that make rendering a larger narrative difficult. It is for these combined reasons that the early republic has escaped most recent debates on the nature of empire.</p> <p><em>The Early Imperial Republic</em> offers to connect the dots: to chart American imperial ambitions from the earliest years of the country’s history to better understand chapters in the Civil War era and to “reframe scholarly understandings of the new republic” (p. 13). To do so, this collection’s impressively varied essays are divided into three categories. The first is largely continental, and focuses on sovereignty. Here the contributors grapple with the ways the <strong>[End Page 608]</strong> federal government sought an orderly expansion of the nation’s borders, how interested local and Native groups either enabled or contested those efforts, and how both the problems and the solutions look a lot like “familiar imperial forms and practices” consistent with traditional European-style empires (p. 18). The second section expands in a noncontiguous way, to Mexico as well as to Hawaii and Africa, in an effort to highlight the global nature of American imperial ambitions. The third section transitions to a more intellectual look at how various American groups, from the Seminole Wars to the Mexican- American War, conceived of, reacted to, and even resisted the United States’ imperial ambitions, as the final three essays suggest.</p> <p>In the collection’s introduction, Blaakman and Conroy-Krutz emphasize that the volume is not bound together by one specific idea of what is “imperial.” It suggests no paradigm shift, no alternative language, no new unifying definition. In fact, the essays that follow interchange the terms <em>imperial</em>, <em>colonial</em>, and <em>settler colonial</em> regularly. They follow various Native groups, merchants, missionaries, slaves, and abolitionists across the Atlantic and Pacific, attempting to connect various disparate fields and helping prove an important introductory point about the confused, overlapping, and fragmented nature of the field.</p> <p>While this variety is indeed the volume’s great strength, it is not necessarily borne out equally across the sections. In fact, as Blaakman and Conroy-Krutz acknowledge in their introduction, if there is a best-known imperialism during the early republic, it is the continental variety—settler colonialism—which is best articulated in the collection’s first section. At six chapters, this section is the largest one and is twice as big as the third section. Despite an attempt to create a sprawling framework with equal attention given to global and intellectual perspectives, the sheer number of contributions seems to suggest that while early American imperialism went lots of places and involved lots of people, the trans-Appalachian West was its home.</p> <p>While the editors do not dwell on definitions, either for <em>imperialism</em> or for what constitutes the <em>early republic</em> chronologically, the loose framework established in the introduction otherwise works well. It allows <em>The Early Imperial Republic</em> to go wherever the contributors like, and they go in all sorts of intriguing, even surprising, directions. Essays move from the...</p> </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/soh.2024.a932566\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/soh.2024.a932566","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要:评论者: 早期帝国共和国:Michael A. Blaakman、Emily Conroy-Krutz 和 Noelani Arista Kevin Kokomoor 编著的《早期帝国共和国:从美国革命到美墨战争》:从美国革命到美墨战争。Michael A. Blaakman、Emily Conroy-Krutz 和 Noelani Arista 编辑。早期美国研究》。(费城:费城:宾夕法尼亚大学出版社,2023 年。第 vi 页,第 339 页。55.00美元,ISBN 978-0-8122-5278-1)。迈克尔-A-布莱克曼(Michael A. Blaakman)和艾米丽-康罗伊-克鲁兹(Emily Conroy-Krutz)认为,人们在想到 "帝国 "或 "帝国主义 "时,并不一定会想到美利坚合众国最早的年代,这有几个原因。到 19 世纪晚期可能会有这种联系,但到 18 世纪晚期就没有了。正如编者在《早期帝国共和国》一书非常重要的导言中所指出的那样,学术界的这种犹豫不决、含糊其辞或干脆排除在外有几个意识形态和历史学方面的原因:编者在《早期帝国共和国:从美国革命到美墨战争》非常重要的导言中指出了这一点。早期的共和国是一个充满特殊主义和胜利主义的地方。它也很弱小,帝国的理念与共和国的理念并不相符。最后,美帝国主义的每一个可能的矢量通常都被囚禁在特定的历史子领域中,难以进行更广泛的叙述。正是由于这些综合原因,早期共和政体躲过了近期关于帝国性质的大多数争论。早期帝国共和国》将这些问题联系起来:描绘美国历史上最早几年的帝国野心,以更好地理解南北战争时期的章节,并 "重构学术界对新共和国的理解"(第 13 页)。为此,这本文集中令人印象深刻的文章分为三类。第一类主要是大陆性的,侧重于主权问题。在这里,撰稿人探讨了联邦政府寻求有序扩张国家边界的方式,感兴趣的地方和土著团体是如何支持或反对这些努力的,以及问题和解决方案是如何与传统欧洲式帝国的 "熟悉的帝国形式和做法 "非常相似的(第 18 页)。第二部分以一种非连续的方式扩展到墨西哥、夏威夷和非洲,以突出美帝国主义野心的全球性质。正如最后三篇文章所暗示的,第三部分转而以更加理性的视角审视从塞米诺尔战争到美墨战争的各个美国群体如何构想、应对甚至抵制美国的帝国野心。布莱克曼和康罗伊-克鲁兹在文集的导言中强调,这本文集并不是由 "帝国 "这一特定概念所束缚。它没有提出范式转换、替代语言或新的统一定义。事实上,接下来的文章经常互换 "帝国"、"殖民 "和 "殖民定居者 "等术语。这些文章追踪了大西洋和太平洋地区的各种土著群体、商人、传教士、奴隶和废奴主义者,试图将各种不同的领域联系起来,并帮助证明了一个重要的入门观点,即这一领域的混乱、重叠和支离破碎的性质。虽然这种多样性确实是该书的一大优势,但各部分的内容并不一定相同。事实上,正如布拉克曼和康罗伊-克鲁兹在导言中承认的那样,如果说在共和国早期有一种最著名的帝国主义,那就是大陆的殖民主义--这在文集的第一部分中得到了最好的阐述。该部分共有六章,是篇幅最大的一部分,是第三部分的两倍。尽管该书试图建立一个庞大的框架,并对全球和知识视角给予同等关注,但从文章的数量来看,早期美帝国主义的足迹遍布许多地方,涉及许多人,但跨阿巴拉契亚西部才是它的故乡。虽然编者没有详细讨论帝国主义的定义,也没有按时间顺序讨论早期共和国的构成要素,但导言中建立的松散框架在其他方面效果良好。这使得《早期帝国共和国》能够随作者的喜好而发展,并朝着各种有趣甚至令人惊讶的方向发展。文章从...
The Early Imperial Republic: From the American Revolution to the U.S.-Mexican War ed. by Michael A. Blaakman, Emily Conroy-Krutz and Noelani Arista (review)
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
Reviewed by:
The Early Imperial Republic: From the American Revolution to the U.S.-Mexican War ed. by Michael A. Blaakman, Emily Conroy-Krutz and Noelani Arista
Kevin Kokomoor
The Early Imperial Republic: From the American Revolution to the U.S.-Mexican War. Edited by Michael A. Blaakman, Emily Conroy-Krutz, and Noelani Arista. Early American Studies. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2023. Pp. vi, 339. $55.00, ISBN 978-0-8122-5278-1.)
There are several reasons, according to Michael A. Blaakman and Emily Conroy-Krutz, that when one thinks of “empire,” or “imperialism,” one does not necessarily think of the earliest years of the United States of America. The connection might be there by the late nineteenth century, but not the late eighteenth. There are several ideological and historiographical reasons for such scholarly hesitation, obfuscation, or downright exclusion, as the editors draw out in the very important introduction to The Early Imperial Republic: From the American Revolution to the U.S.-Mexican War. The early republic was a place of exceptionalism and triumphalism. It was also weak, and the idea of an empire did not mesh well with the idea of a republic. Lastly, each possible vector of American imperialism is usually pigeonholed in specific historical subfields that make rendering a larger narrative difficult. It is for these combined reasons that the early republic has escaped most recent debates on the nature of empire.
The Early Imperial Republic offers to connect the dots: to chart American imperial ambitions from the earliest years of the country’s history to better understand chapters in the Civil War era and to “reframe scholarly understandings of the new republic” (p. 13). To do so, this collection’s impressively varied essays are divided into three categories. The first is largely continental, and focuses on sovereignty. Here the contributors grapple with the ways the [End Page 608] federal government sought an orderly expansion of the nation’s borders, how interested local and Native groups either enabled or contested those efforts, and how both the problems and the solutions look a lot like “familiar imperial forms and practices” consistent with traditional European-style empires (p. 18). The second section expands in a noncontiguous way, to Mexico as well as to Hawaii and Africa, in an effort to highlight the global nature of American imperial ambitions. The third section transitions to a more intellectual look at how various American groups, from the Seminole Wars to the Mexican- American War, conceived of, reacted to, and even resisted the United States’ imperial ambitions, as the final three essays suggest.
In the collection’s introduction, Blaakman and Conroy-Krutz emphasize that the volume is not bound together by one specific idea of what is “imperial.” It suggests no paradigm shift, no alternative language, no new unifying definition. In fact, the essays that follow interchange the terms imperial, colonial, and settler colonial regularly. They follow various Native groups, merchants, missionaries, slaves, and abolitionists across the Atlantic and Pacific, attempting to connect various disparate fields and helping prove an important introductory point about the confused, overlapping, and fragmented nature of the field.
While this variety is indeed the volume’s great strength, it is not necessarily borne out equally across the sections. In fact, as Blaakman and Conroy-Krutz acknowledge in their introduction, if there is a best-known imperialism during the early republic, it is the continental variety—settler colonialism—which is best articulated in the collection’s first section. At six chapters, this section is the largest one and is twice as big as the third section. Despite an attempt to create a sprawling framework with equal attention given to global and intellectual perspectives, the sheer number of contributions seems to suggest that while early American imperialism went lots of places and involved lots of people, the trans-Appalachian West was its home.
While the editors do not dwell on definitions, either for imperialism or for what constitutes the early republic chronologically, the loose framework established in the introduction otherwise works well. It allows The Early Imperial Republic to go wherever the contributors like, and they go in all sorts of intriguing, even surprising, directions. Essays move from the...