Debating Slavery and Empire

Abstract

Since the time of John Winthrop, some Americans have regarded themselves as blessed by Providence to develop an inspirational “city on a hill”. The promotion of the United States as an “asylum for liberty” reflects this mentality and especially during the nineteenth century led to an expressed interest in leading humankind towards a new “land of Canaan” on the shores of the western Atlantic. 1 This is not to suggest that Britain saw itself as the Old World antithesis of the United States. Britain too had been “singularly blessed by Providence”. 2 Moreover, as the two countries put the Anglo-American Revolution behind them, neither was willing to shed their assumed roles as “the standard bearers of human liberation” even if these aspirations were restricted in obvious ways. 3 In the United States , the constitution did not empower African-Americans, indigenous peoples, or women at the federal level, while more generally, early-national Americans had only vague notions about “national” identity. 4 In Britain, Catholic Emancipation (1829) and the reforms of 1832 also had their limits. 5 However, even within such limits, these initiatives confronted some of the underlying assumptions of the British polity. Moreover, as Linda Colley points out, they gave “more orthodox Britons” a platform “to rebut American pretensions to superior freedoms” and to assert that, especially after the collapse of the Napoleonic regime, Britain still saw itself as the bellwether of “progress”. 6 This became clear during the debates on the abolition of slavery which were also used by the two countries to emphasise that their respective societies represented the better way. 7 These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.