War is no longer a proving ground for heroism in the same way it used to be. But while our audiences overlap, they are distinct. Taking readers from the founding of the republic to the Global War on Terror, Immerman shows how each individual's influence arose from a keen sensitivity to the concerns of his times; how the trajectory of American empire was relentless if not straight; and how these shrewd and powerful individuals shaped their rhetoric about liberty to suit their needs. Unlike Franklin, Adams, and Dulles, whose imperial push was a defensive response, Seward acted by choice like Wolfowitz and Bush rather than from necessity. The Civil War and the occupation of the Southern states during Reconstruction served as a catalyst for changing views about empire. Buthusiem Family Distinguished Faculty Fellow in History and the Marvin Wachman Director of the Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy at Temple University. When it came to race, Lodge had a mixed position.
Immerman makes a significant contribution to American history by synthesizing the ways representative policymakers have conceived of the question of American empire. The central case of the book rests as follows: the American empire is not as centralized, integrated and huge as the Roman one, nor colonial like the British, but rather an entity of ideas, mentalities, values and interests. Near where I live in Philadelphia is a district called Northern Liberties. © Copyright 2011-2015 The Authors. The topic is ambitious, being embedded in a wider literature characterized by similar endeavors. The six figures through whose lens the creation of empire is viewed are major figures in the era that they served, but only one actually served as president.
Both the Revolution and bondage are obvious examples of liberty-seeking, however. The second person I must thank specifically is at the other end of my professional spectrum: Jeffrey Engel. Transcending the limited concepts of sovereignty and rule, the Roman Empire incorporated administrative centralization and political integration. In fact, Americans became increasingly defensive about their status as an empire after, combining force primarily and diplomacy secondarily , they acquired uncontested political control—sovereignty—across the North American continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans. Constitution, and Bill of Rights were not simply abstractions, and first found expression in American diplomacy in the form of political isolationism, neutrality, and freedom of the seas.
This is an excellent work that flows cleanly through the history of the U. High tea with Saki was always a true education as well an unadulterated pleasure. It began with smaller goals. It was particularly sinful in their view to deny freedom to oppressed peoples, not coincidentally, who happened to reside astride a sea of oil. And if so, how has it reconciled its imperialism - and in some cases, its crimes - with the idea of liberty so forcefully expressed in the Declaration of Independence? When Seward came to Washington, as a Senator for New York, his conception of the future course of American empire was already highly developed. The prevalent opinion was, nevertheless, that Americans goals and motives were consistently benevolent or defensive, not imperialistic.
Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson proudly juxtaposed America with empire. Americans did not, even as they annihilated or forcibly relocated Native Americans, executed foreign nationals, and conquered territories. But what about, say, John Foster Dulles? Rather than fit a single pattern, it evolved like a patchwork quilt—messy from the perspective of history. A juicy term like this one should be better exploited. Like many historians of U.
But his presentation seems to support a predetermined course of empire, as if the United States won its independence, and thus — voila! It was one thing to juxtapose Benjamin Franklin with, for example, his son William, or Joseph Galloway, or even Thomas Hutchinson. Empire for Liberty is essential reading for students and enthusiasts of American history and the United States' place in and approach to the world, historically and contemporarily. Weeks initially wondered whether it was wise to include Wolfowitz. Tom Zeiler, a professor of history and international affairs at the University of Colorado at Boulder since 1990, received a Ph. Empire for Liberty tells the story of men who used the rhetoric of liberty to further their imperial ambitions, and reveals that the quest for empire has guided the nation's architects from the very beginning--and continues to do so today. Bush, to be published by Houghton Harcourt Mifflin, and Seeking Monsters to Destroy: American Language and War from Jefferson to Obama, to be published by Oxford University Press.
A graduate of Cornell University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, he is currently writing When the World Seemed New: American Foreign Policy in the Age of George H. She is Distinguished Research Professor of History at Montana State University, Bozeman. I call Zeiler and raise him. Immerman knows an empire when he sees it, and for the full payoff of his argument, implores us to do the same. Immerman, Temple University I must begin by thanking Tom Maddox for organizing this roundtable and Howard Jones for agreeing to write the introduction. It is as though they never have to say they are sorry or be subject to the possibility of indictment as long as they maintain they acted morally and in good conscience to ensure the security of the nation. Most people could not appreciate liberty, and therefore they stood in the way of its progress.
This to me seems wrongheaded. Other books include: Nixon Reconsidered; Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive; Ideology and Economics: United States Relations with the Soviet Union, 1918-1933; American Business and Foreign Policy, 1920-1933; Law, Gender and Injustice: A Legal History of U. If the book has one flaw it's that it's under-argued. 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. Did America set out to become an empire? In the book I underscore the massive number of books and articles about the American empire that have been published since 2003. They assumed in turn the responsibility to define such terms, in order to demonstrate how their nation did or did not fall within the boundaries of their definitions. Indeed, it would be an exercise in futility to suggest other men as more or less illustrative.
But he is a tragic hero. The empire may well be less -- more liberty remains highly uncertain. In the policies of all six men, with the exception of Adams, Immerman indicates that, at the very least, that they usually compromised the idea of liberty in pursuing their respective versions of an American empire. At Princeton University Press I am grateful to Brigitta van Rheinberg for her invitation to turn my ideas into a book and selecting such outstanding referees to whom, anonymous as they are, I am also grateful , to Clara Platter for her attention and management, and to both of them for their patience. Empire for Liberty tells the story of men who used the rhetoric of liberty to further their imperial ambitions, and reveals that the quest for empire has guided the nation's architects from the very beginning--and continues to do so today. As the nascent empire expanded it ran full on into the conflict between expansion and liberty.
Immerman has written nothing less than an excellent book, but he also concedes the plethora of books on the topic that were spurred by the global war on terrorism and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Immerman tells us that for American policymakers at the onset of the twenty-first century, their power had become like that of the cosmic creator, capable of remaking social bonds through the sheer weight of American power and force. Bush New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008 , 22-24, 68, 111; and Ryn, 2-3. I tried to come up with what one might call a working definition cf. He makes his case well nonetheless, and with some excellent quotes. Americans believe in liberty and they support the advancement of liberty, but they interpret the word so broadly, and in so many different contexts, that it all but loses its meaning.