Abstract: In the late 1840s and 1850s, the American Democratic party redefined itself as “conservative.” Yet Democrats’ preexisting dedication to majoritarian democracy, liberal individualism, and white supremacy had not changed. Democrats believed that “fanatical” reformers, who opposed slavery and advanced the rights of African Americans and women, imperiled the white man’s republic they had crafted in the early 1800s. There were no more abstract notions of freedom to boundlessly unfold; there was only the existing liberty of white men to conserve. Democrats therefore recast democracy, previously a progressive means to expand rights, as a way for local majorities to police racial and gender boundaries. In the process, they reinvigorated American conservatism by placing it on a foundation of majoritarian democracy.

Empowering white men to democratically govern all other Americans, Democrats contended, would preserve their prerogatives. With the policy of “popular sovereignty,” for instance, Democrats left slavery’s expansion to territorial settlers’ democratic decision-making. Democrats also applied democracy and individualism to temperance, religious liberty, and nativism. Democratic conservatism would protect white men against “fanaticism,” an ideology which countenanced governmental imposition of moral norms. Democratic principles united white men from the Slave States and Free States, Catholics and Protestants, conservative former Whigs, and native and foreign-born Americans with the promise of moral autonomy on issues like slavery. In addition to political principles, Democrats also ascribed to shared cultural prescriptions regarding whiteness, manhood, and domesticity.

As became clear by the late 1850s, however, majoritarian democracy could actually destabilize racial and gender boundaries. Local democracy could undermine the white man’s republic, especially when marginalized Americans turned democracy to their own ends. In basing a conservative political order on the instability of democracy, Democrats failed to bulwark white supremacy and slavery, but did place American conservatism on a new, populist trajectory. The tenets of modern conservatism, culminating in the twentieth and twenty-first-century New Right, coalesced during the 1850s debates over white supremacy and slavery. Historicizing the conjunction of conservative thought and democratic practice reveals the point at which majoritarian democracy and “liberal” antistatism and individualism became the “conservative” means for upholding a specific racial and gendered order.




Available here.



Abstract: This dissertation examines how Native American writing and performance mediated between tribal nations and colonial institutions during the period of Indian removal. It analyzes collaborative publications by writers, orators, and tribal leaders from four different Indian nations between 1820 and 1860: Sharitarish and Petalesharo (Pawnee); Black Hawk, Keokuk, and Hardfish (Sauk); Peter Pitchlynn (Choctaw); and Jane Johnston Schoolcraft, Peter Jones, and George Copway (Ojibwe). I argue that these authors generated what I call “publication projects”: collaborative forms of writing and speaking that imagined institutional and discursive change through navigating colonial institutional networks. Embracing oral performance, manuscript writing, and print publishing, Native writers asserted themselves within the overlapping networks of colonial and tribal governments and civil society, such as the Office of Indian Affairs, missionary organizations, and educational institutions. As publication in the nineteenth century was not principally the work of addressing disembodied or cross-regional audiences, these Native American publication projects sought to inflect associational networks wherein Indian policy was made and knowledge created, and in which Indian removal was both promoted and debated. Removal-era Native writings and performances therefore register attempts to assert control over publication technologies in order to alternately critique or modify such networks, or to mobilize them to contribute to the work of Indian nation-building. Through collaborative and highly mediated publications, Native writers, speakers, and tribal leaders asserted themselves as “authorized agents,” performing a public and politicized Native presence to claim a place for tribal nations in North America. As situational acts of writing and performance, these projects negotiated and contested the local and regional pressures through which North American settler colonialism manifested.




Access the book here


Access the articles.