This dissertation explores American attitudes toward British imperialism between 1815 and 1860 to determine what Americans thought of imperialism before the United States became an imperial power. It addresses the debate of whether the United States's acquisition of an empire in the 1890s was intentional or was, as many historians have characterized it, an accidental acquisition by a people long opposed to empire. This study also explores the benefits of incorporating American culture and society into the study of American imperialism.;This era connects the time when Americans re-established their independence from Great Britain---with the War of 1812---to the eve of the Civil War, which solved the sectional crisis and thus put the nation in a position to pursue overseas expansion unimpeded. America changed rapidly during this era. New Protestant denominations challenged the church's authority, industrialization made workplaces more hierarchical and caused greater awareness of class, and a print revolution brought many more Americans into the reading public.;During the era under review, many Americans commented on episodes throughout the British empire. their views on issues including religion, war, and slavery strongly influenced their attitudes toward foreign events. Meanwhile, the often sketchy nature of accounts from abroad enabled writers to accept some accounts and doubt others.;The variety of American experiences partly explains the varying attitudes toward imperialism. Many Americans praised the British for spreading Protestant Christianity, a rigorous work ethic, and British governance, and for bringing new producers and consumers into international trade. They tended to accept the means to these ends, such as high mortality among natives and British suppression of native insurrections. But others lambasted the British for introducing diseases, weapons, and alcohol that decimated native populations and for reaping profits by exploiting natives.;Almost all Americans agreed that the British imperial system was flawed, but few concluded that imperialism was inherently wrong or unworkable. Although most considered the acquisition of a territorial empire unnecessary, they believed that a commercial American empire could benefit all parties involved.

The purpose of this study is to utilize the insights provided by the decisions of the Virginia Court of Appeals during the years 1776-1830 to gain a fuller understanding of the concept of "republicanism" through an analysis of its application in courts of law.;It is clear that in the years after the Revolution, the Virginia Court of Appeals made a striking statement about the nature of that Revolution in Virginia. It defined a new constitutional order by elevating the Virginia constitution to the plane of higher law, and by articulating and implementing the doctrine of popular sovereignty. The court made workable such previously theoretical constructs as the separation of powers, and adapted the English legal heritage to republican dictates and the demands of a new society. It was also instrumental in applying new republican conceptions to specific areas of the law. In so doing, the court displayed a clear deference to the policy initiatives of the legislative branch.;While applying republican principles, the Virginia court added a decidedly conservative gloss, favoring stable rules of law and the protection of existing property rights at every opportunity, in the process supporting the existing political order. at the same time, the Virginia Court of Appeals was in the forefront of a localistic response to the challenges posed by the establishment of a new federal government.;Taken together, these conclusions suggest that Virginia retained in large part a conservative, localistic strain of republicanism well into the nineteenth century, while its judiciary remained essentially incrementalist in its policy-making approach.

The Tuscarora War marked a major turning point in the development of proprietary North Carolina. Beginning in 1711 and continuing for two years, the war rendered the central coastal plains a virtual wasteland and plunged the colony into an economic recession. Only the arrival of South Carolina troops in 1712 and 1713 saved North Carolina from complete destruction.;While the defeat of the Tuscaroras marked the end of their dominance along the North Carolina coastal plains, the war also served as a major catalyst behind political, economic, and demographic developments in the colony. During the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, proprietary neglect, coupled with the absence of an overseas trade, hindered early commercial development and led to chronic political instability. On the eve of the war, the colony was in the midst of a civil revolt as leaders from the Albemarle region vied with religious opponents and political competitors in Bath County for control of the government.;The war affected the political scenario of the colony insofar as it enabled the Albemarle elite to dominate the government. Albemarle officials used their newfound power to strengthen colonial institutions and establish their independence from the proprietors. The period of growth not only led to a trade boom in the 1720s but also led to the expansion of western and southern settlement along former Tuscarora territories.;Although the war provided the Albemarle elite with opportunities to promote the public interest as well as their personal fortunes, it did not end political factionalization. The removal of the Tuscaroras and the growth of the colonial economy attracted newcomers to the Cape Fear region whose commercial wealth was equal to if not greater than that of the Albemarle elite. as the Cape Fear planters began to infiltrate the colonial government, Albemarle leaders again resorted to factional and individualistic politics. By the end of the proprietary period, North Carolina had entered a new phase of factional politics that would continue until the mid-eighteenth century.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Major General William Farrar Smith (1824-1903) played several key roles that contributed to Federal success in the Civil War. as a division commander and chief of engineers, Smith twice saved the Union Army from disastrous defeats. He also served as an important military critic of the tactical incompetence of fellow Union generals.;Smith's first major Civil War contribution came as a division commander during the Peninsula campaign of 1862. at White Oak Swamp, his strong stand held back the pursuit of the Confederates and enabled the Army of the Potomac to reach its new supply base.;Smith commanded the Sixth Corps at Fredericksburg. Shocked by General Burnside's wasteful attempts to take Marye's Heights, Smith wrote to President Lincoln condemning Burnside's plans. Burnside's humiliating mud march in January 1863 validated Smith's criticisms. But because of his indiscretion, and his friendship with General McClellan, who was under fire from Congressional Republicans, Smith was relieved of command and denied promotion to major general.;In October, as the chief engineer of the Army of the Cumberland, Smith made one of his greatest contributions to the war effort. The Confederates had nearly invested the Union Army at Chattanooga. But Smith devised and implemented a plan which restored Chattanooga's communications and enabled the important city to be held.;General Grant was impressed with Smith and made him Eighteenth Corps commander. Smith's success at the battle of Petersburg and his skills as a tactician led Grant to place the troops of the Army of the James under his command. Shortly afterwards, however, Grant became convinced that Smith's censure of General Meade's attack at Cold Harbor was directed at him. to end this criticism, Grant relieved Smith of command in July 1864. Nevertheless, on March 13, 1865, Congress recognized Smith's distinguished service by brevetting him a major general. A thorough examination of his life and writings gives a revealing account of the war and offers a partial explanation of why the North took four years to defeat the South.

No description available.

No description available.