The Two Faces of American Freedom

1. The Two Faces of American Freedom: Internal Liberty, External Subordination

This fact embodies the two faces of American freedom: our long-standing diffi culty in imagining liberty without suppression and free citizenship without the control of subject communities.

A foundational paradox. American freedom, often celebrated as a beacon of liberty, has historically been intertwined with practices of subordination and empire. This book argues that the nation's unique ideal of collective freedom for Anglo settlers necessitated external modes of supervision and control over others. This inherent duality shaped the country's political and constitutional development from its very origins.

Settler empire's core. The American experience is best understood as a constitutional and political experiment in "settler empire." This framework linked the promise of liberty for insiders to the dispossession of indigenous peoples and the coercive use of dependent groups, most prominently slaves. Settlers believed their democratic institutions required access to property and freedom from menial labor, which was ensured by the subjugation of others.

Evolving but persistent. While the harsh features of this imperial past have evolved, the core tension remains. Today, American power is largely disconnected from its historic guiding commitments to internal freedom. The projection of power has become an end in itself, with security at the center of political discourse, entrenching hierarchical forms of economic and political rule.

2. Settler Revolt, Not Just Revolution: Defending a Colonial Status Quo

Settler revolt was consequently as much about the past as it was about the future. It expressed the belief that in asserting in de pendence colonists could reclaim a lost imperial status quo.

Revolution's true nature. The American Revolution was not solely a fight for abstract liberty, but a "settler revolt" aimed at preserving and reasserting a specific colonial status quo. By the 1760s, the British Empire, having expanded globally and become more diverse, began centralizing control and extending protections to non-Anglo subjects like French Canadians, Native Americans, and slaves. This threatened the autonomy and social supremacy long enjoyed by Anglo colonists.

Threat to settler privilege. British policies, such as the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (limiting westward expansion) and the Quebec Act of 1774 (granting rights to Catholics), were seen by settlers as tyrannical. These measures undermined their vision of republican freedom, which was predicated on:

• Economic independence through land ownership.
• Political self-rule and local autonomy.
• Protestant millennialism and ethnic supremacy.
• The right to dispossess natives and control dependent labor.

Reclaiming empire. For Anglo settlers, British attempts to make imperial power more culturally inclusive jeopardized their privileged status. The Revolution was a reassertion of the inherent link between internal liberty and external subordination, establishing an independent settler empire that would continue to expand, but now under their own direction, free from metropolitan interference.

3. Populist Promise: Energetic Government for Economic Independence

For such groups, achieving meaningful in de pen dence required energizing government power and linking it to a self- assertive pop u lar will.

A radical vision emerges. In the wake of the Revolution, small farmers and townspeople, exemplified by the Shays' and Whiskey Rebellions, articulated a "populist" account of republican liberty. They saw property seizures and the threat of tenancy as a form of "slavery," arguing that true freedom required land ownership and control over one's labor.

Producerist democracy. This populist vision diverged from elite republicanism by asserting that the common good was identical to the interests of the laboring community. They advocated for:

• Local, majoritarian legislatures wielding supreme power.
• Energetic state authority to promote economic liberty (e.g., debt relief, territorial conquest).
• Rejection of institutional checks and balances as elite tools to undermine popular will.

Manning's blueprint. Thinkers like William Manning, in "The Key of Libberty," argued that government was a permanent necessity to counter the "scuffle between the Few and the Many." He envisioned a "Society of Laborers" to continuously mobilize ordinary settlers, democratize intelligence, and ensure that the collective self-interest of producers guided public policy.

4. Postcolonial Predicament: Global Weakness Undermines Local Democracy

The fortunes of disunited America will be even more disastrous than those of Eu rope.

Neocolonial fears. Despite juridical independence, the early American republic remained economically dependent within a global mercantilist system dominated by European powers. This "postcolonial predicament" created intense fears among elites that the new nation was vulnerable to foreign manipulation and dismemberment, much like Kwame Nkrumah's later concept of neocolonialism.

Federalist response. The Shays' Rebellion and other frontier unrest highlighted the fragility of the loose confederacy. Federalists like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued for a stronger, centralized government to:

• Limit European interference and prevent the colonies from becoming "prey to artifi ces and machinations."
• Insulate political and economic decision-making from "popular passions" and "interested and overbearing majorities."
• Create a stable, unified nation capable of asserting itself on the world stage.

Populism's shift. The ratification of the Constitution marked an institutional defeat for the populist vision of local, majoritarian rule. Government power became increasingly associated with a suspect "imperial prerogative" when applied internally, leading populists to focus on policing state activity rather than actively directing it. This shift laid the groundwork for American anti-statism, as energetic government was now seen as a threat to liberty, rather than its instrument.

5. Constitutionalizing Empire: Federal Power Over Subjects, Not Citizens

Conquest gives a title which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny.

Doctrine of Discovery enshrined. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, constitutionalized the British "Doctrine of Discovery" in Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823). This doctrine asserted that European "discoverers" had an exclusive right to extinguish Native American title of occupancy, effectively denying indigenous sovereignty. This established a legal basis for continuous territorial expansion and the dispossession of native lands.

Duality of power. The new republic asserted two distinct forms of sovereign power:

• Internal: Settler society aimed to eliminate royal prerogative and establish political and economic independence for its citizens.
• External: Congress possessed an "imperial prerogative" over conquered territories and non-settler populations, derived from the British Crown, justifying their rule by force or removal.

Stratified subjectship. This duality meant that while European immigrants were swiftly incorporated as "intending citizens" with extensive rights (including alien suffrage and land grants), non-Anglo groups (Native Americans, blacks, Mexicans) were treated as "imperial subjects." Their rights were carefully correlated to settler economic interests and the necessities of maintaining control, often denying them meaningful "free citizenship" despite formal legal status.

6. Populism's Retreat: Xenophobia and the Demise of Universalism

The yellowman is only a slave.

Economic anxieties fuel exclusion. As industrialization advanced and wage labor became widespread, many white settlers faced economic insecurity, threatening their republican ideal of independence. This led to a reassertion of settler xenophobia, particularly against Chinese immigrants, who were seen as an "industrial reserve army" depressing wages and threatening white economic standing.

Chinese exclusion. This sentiment culminated in federal policies like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which barred Chinese labor and denied them naturalization, creating a new category of "aliens ineligible for citizenship." This demonstrated a willingness to use discretionary government power to protect white economic interests, even if it meant abandoning the principle of free movement for all.

Limits of solidarity. While radical populists like Terence Powderly and Tom Watson initially advocated for labor unity across racial lines, the movement's internal contradictions and the pressure of economic competition often led to a retreat into racial prejudice. Watson, for example, later embraced white supremacy, blaming blacks for political difficulties and justifying their disenfranchisement.

7. Unraveling Settlerism: Industrialization and the End of Expansion

Long having wander’d since, round the earth having wander’d, / Now I face home again, very pleas’d and joyous, / (But where is what I started for so long ago? / And why is it yet unfound?)

Frontier's closing. By the late 19th century, the continental frontier was largely settled, challenging the core premise of settler empire: that territorial expansion would continuously provide land for white settlers and ensure economic independence. Instead, expansion increasingly served corporate interests, extending the industrial order rather than fostering a democracy of small producers.

Erosion of the productive divide. The rise of factory production and the fall in agricultural prices meant that more white settlers were reduced to wage labor or tenancy, jobs historically deemed "unfree" and reserved for subordinated groups. The traditional link between white identity and "free labor" was severed, as settlers found themselves competing with blacks, immigrants, and Mexicans for menial work.

Loss of purpose. Walt Whitman's poem "Facing West from California's Shores" captured this national restlessness. The emancipatory impulse of settler empire, once tied to republican freedom and utopian peace, seemed to have vanished. The continuous process of conquest and control had become self-perpetuating, detached from its original purpose of securing domestic tranquility and liberty.

8. Rise of Executive Prerogative: Domestic Order Through Imperial Power

The strong arm of the national government may be put forth to brush away all obstructions to the freedom of interstate commerce or the transportation of the mails.

Internal pacification. Faced with widespread industrial unrest and populist revolts in the late 19th century, political and corporate elites increasingly viewed an aggressive application of state violence as necessary to maintain social stability. The goal of "permanent peace" shifted from continental pacification to subduing domestic disorder.

Executive as enforcer. Judicial decisions like In re Neagle (1890) and In re Debs (1895) legitimized the expansion of inherent emergency powers for the executive branch. These rulings:

• Asserted the President's "plenary and exclusive power" in foreign affairs.
• Upheld the President's unilateral use of military force to quell labor strikes (e.g., the Pullman Strike).
• Transferred discretionary authority from legislative majorities to insulated executives.

Softening the citizen/subject divide. This domestic application of "imperial prerogative," once reserved for non-settler populations, blurred the line between free citizens and stratified subjects. It meant that individuals, regardless of ethnicity or race, could now face forms of discretionary rule historically understood as colonial, signaling a fundamental shift in American governance.

9. From Self-Rule to Security: The Progressive and New Deal Transformation

“Security” is a means, and although an indispensible means it is not an end.

Redefining freedom. The Progressive and New Deal eras saw a fundamental redefinition of American liberty, shifting from "self-rule" (economic and political independence) to "security" (freedom from economic want and foreign threat). This change was driven by the complexities of industrial society and the perceived failures of earlier populist movements.

Progressive ideals. Thinkers like Walter Weyl and John Dewey sought to reconcile self-rule with modern conditions through:

• Universal education and democratized leisure.
• Redistribution of "social surplus" to ensure economic well-being.
• Industrial democracy and stronger unionism to give workers control.
  However, these ideals were often overshadowed by the rise of administrative power.

New Deal's focus. Franklin D. Roosevelt's "liberalism" prioritized "decency" and a "comfortable living" for all Americans, with employment recast as a means to financial security rather than self-rule. While providing crucial social welfare programs (Social Security, Wagner Act), this approach often transformed security into an end in itself, rather than a precondition for active, participatory citizenship.

10. Humanitarian Imperialism: Global Power as National Purpose

The imperialistic ideal coupled with our natural humanitarian impulses permitted us to treat these primitive people better than our own.

New justification for empire. With the decline of economic independence as the ethical basis for citizenship, American intellectuals and politicians, like Theodore Roosevelt and Josiah Strong, turned to global expansion to provide a new sense of shared purpose. This "humanitarian imperialism" reimagined empire as a civilizing mission to spread Anglo-American liberty and achieve "permanent peace" worldwide.

Militarism and national identity. Roosevelt's "strenuous life" ethos championed military service and global action as the new arena for true American citizenship, replacing the hard work of homesteading. This militarism, combined with a resurgent Protestant millennialism, justified American dominance as a means to bring "law, order, and righteousness" to "barbarian peoples."

Global police power. The Spanish-American War and the Insular Cases constitutionalized the indefinite possession of colonial dependencies, rejecting the Dred Scott precedent. This new legal framework, exemplified by the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, asserted America's right to act as an "international police power," intervening in weaker states to ensure stability, promote democracy (defined as electoral legitimacy), and open markets.

11. Plebiscitary Presidency: Executive as the People's Sole Organ

The President . . . is the steward of the people, and . . . he is bound to assume that he has the legal right to do what ever the needs of the people demand, unless the Constitution or the laws explicitly forbid him to do it.

Executive ascendance. The Great Depression and the New Deal cemented the presidency as the political center of American government. This "plebiscitary presidency" was characterized by:

• Expanded discretionary power: Judicial deference (Curtiss-Wright) and congressional delegation of legislative authority.
• Transformative judicial appointments: Used to align the judiciary with the executive's agenda.
• Centralized administration: Growth of White House staff and executive agencies, asserting presidential leadership over lawmaking.

Direct link to the people. The President became the "sole organ" capable of speaking for the nation, fostering a direct, unmediated relationship with the public. Elections became key moments for expressing approval of presidential leadership, transforming the "people" into a coherent body primarily through the executive's actions and mass communication.

Politics of substitution. This system allowed the executive to define and direct social ends, pursuing "security" and "permanent peace" in the name of the people, often without a mobilized or self-assertive social constituency. The President's constituent power, once a revolutionary concept, became a routine tool for regenerating legal norms and altering foundational principles.

12. The Unfinished Promise: Inclusion Without Universal Self-Rule

Equality often has meant simply blunting the harshest implications of the state’s coercive power over marginalized groups and providing elite access for a privileged few drawn from them.

Erosion of self-rule. The New Deal order, while promoting greater formal inclusion (e.g., for blacks and women), largely abandoned the republican vision of self-rule. Citizenship became less about participatory control and economic independence, and more about receiving state security and having meritocratic access to elite positions. This rationalized existing hierarchies rather than dismantling them.

The two civil rights movements. The mid-20th century civil rights struggle had two dimensions:

• Liberal inclusion: Focused on ending legal discrimination and promoting social mobility for middle-class blacks, often aligning with U.S. global moral standing.
• Radical vision: Advocated by W.E.B. Du Bois and Martin Luther King Jr., this sought a "radical restructuring" of American society, linking domestic racism and poverty to global militarism and empire, demanding universal economic self-rule.

Immigration as a new periphery. Today, non-white immigrants from the global south often fill the "unfree" labor roles once reserved for slaves or marginalized groups, perpetuating economic hierarchies. Strict immigration controls and deportations (e.g., for Mexican laborers) replicate the "dependent periphery" within U.S. borders, highlighting the enduring legacy of external subordination.

A path forward. The radical legacy of the civil rights movement and contemporary immigrant activism offer a potential path to revive universal self-rule. By challenging the economic and political hierarchies that deny both immigrants and many native-born Americans genuine control over their lives, these movements could push for a truly inclusive, non-imperial republic where freedom is not traded for security or dominance.

Last updated: February 28, 2026