No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 June 2019
This article examines the local roots of the American state to complicate existing historiography. It suggests that, for education and law, the state tapped into local social capital to develop capacity. State and local governments relied on the mobilization of citizens’ bodies—civic labor—to provide public goods. In doing so, it suggests that we need to offer a story that captures the myriad ways that Americans engaged in state-building, and how those different forms shaped Americans’ relations with state power.
The occasion of this article was an invitation to participate in the Mount Vernon Statebuilding workshop, organized by Max Edling and Peter Kastor, and hosted by George Washington’s Mount Vernon in 2016. I thank all the contributors and commentators for their insights: Brian Balogh, Douglas Bradburn, Kate Elizabeth Brown, Lindsay Chervinsky, Max Edling, Andrew J. B. Fagal, Daniel Hulsebosch, Peter Kastor, Gautham Rao, Stephen Rockwell, and Rosemarie Zagarri. An earlier version of this article was also presented at the 2016 Policy History Conference, where I benefited from the comments of my fellow panelists Mark Boonshoft, Richard John, Gail Radford, and Tracy Steffes. John L. Brooke and two anonymous readers offered substantive peer reviews to guide my revisions. Hunter Price offered thoughtful suggestions on an earlier draft.
1. John, Richard R., “American Political Development and Political History,” in The Oxford Handbook of American Political Development, ed. Valelly, Richard, Mettler, Suzanne, and Robert Lieberman (New York, 2016), 185–206;Google Scholar Edling, Max, A Revolution in Favor of Government: Origins of the U.S. Constitution and the Making of the American State (New York, 2003),CrossRefGoogle Scholar and A Hercules in the Cradle: War, Money, and the American State, 1783–1867 (Chicago, 2014). For examples of books focusing on the national level, see Rockwell, Stephen J., Indian Affairs and the Administrative State in the Nineteenth Century (New York, 2010);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Balogh, Brian, A Government Out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth-Century America (New York, 2009);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Wilson, Mark, “Law and the American State, From the Revolution to the Civil War: Institutional Growth and Structural Change,” in The Cambridge History of Law in America, Volume II: The Long Nineteenth Century (1789–1920), ed. Grossberg, Michael and Tomlins, Christopher (New York, 2008), 1–35;Google Scholar Novak, William J., “The Myth of the ‘Weak’ American State.” American Historical Review 113, no. 3 (2008): 752–72;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Formisano, Ronald P., “State Development in the Early Republic: Substance and Structure, 1780–1840,” in Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775–2000, ed. Shafer, Byron E. and Badger, Anthony J. (Lawrence, Kans., 2001), 7–35;Google Scholar John, Spreading the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse (Cambridge, Mass., 1995); and “Governmental Institutions as Agents of Change: Rethinking American Political Development in the Early Republic, 1787–1835,” Studies in American Political Development 11, no. 2 (1997): 347–80; Bourgin, Frank, The Great Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-Faire in the Early Republic (New York, 1989);Google Scholar Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., Cycles of American History (Boston, 1986),Google Scholar chap. 9.
2. Pasley, Jeff, “Midget on Horseback: American Indians and the History of the American State,” Common-place 9, no. 1 (October 2008), http://www.common-place-archives.org/vol-09/no-01/pasley/.Google Scholar
3. Novak, William J., The People’s Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill, 1996);Google Scholar Tomlins, Christopher, Law, Labor, and Ideology in the Early American Republic (New York, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Gerstle, Gary, Liberty and Coercion: The Paradox of American Government from the Founding to the Present (Princeton, 2015),Google Scholar chap. 2. This point was also made by the older “commonwealth” school. See Scheiber, Harry, “Government and the Economy: Studies of the ‘Commonwealth’ Policy in Nineteenth-Century America,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 3, no. 1 (1972): 135–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Holcombe, Randal G. and Lacombe, Donald J., “The Growth of Local Government in the United States from 1820 to 1870,” Journal of Economic History 61, no. 1 (March 2001): 184–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Skocpol, Theda, “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research,” in Bringing the State Back In, ed. Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda (Cambridge, 1985), 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For context, see Ciepley, David, “Why the State was Dropped in the First Place: A Prequel to Skocpol’s ‘Bringing the State Back In,’” Critical Review (2001): 157–213.Google Scholar
7. I develop this argument in Neem, , Creating a Nation of Joiners: Democracy and Civil Society in Early National Massachusetts (Cambridge, Mass., 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Skocpol, , Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life (Norman, Okla., 2003), 48–57.Google Scholar
9. Balogh, Brian, “Toward an Associational Synthesis,” in The Associational State: American Governance in the Twentieth Century (Philadelphia, 2015), 1–22;Google Scholar Balogh, Government Out of Sight.
10. Gerstle, Liberty and Coercion, 1–13.
11. My argument resonates with what William E. Nelson identified as a basic premise of colonial and early republic governance: the close connection between personal and official authority. See Nelson, , “Officeholding and Powerwielding: An Analysis of the Relationship Between Structure and Style in American Administrative History,” Law and Society Review 10, no. 2 (Winter 1976): 187–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Novak, William J., “Beyond Max Weber: The Need for a Democratic (Not Aristocratic) Theory of the Modern State,” The Tocqueville Review/La Revue Tocqueville 36, no. 1 (2015): 43–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13. Gorski, Philip, The Disciplinary Revolution: Calvinism and the Rise of the State in Early Modern Europe (Chicago, 2003),CrossRefGoogle Scholar xv–xvi, 2. Even though I refer to the mobilization of bodies, I am not engaging directly with Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality. Like Foucault, I recognize the reliance of the state on the activities of ordinary citizens. Yet Foucault’s understanding of power, and the state as its effect, is too diffuse. Governmentality is carried out in every body at all times within a particular regime. My article’s scope is more limited. I am interested in how state leaders turned to citizens to achieve particular public goods, and the implications of these early choices for state development. See Foucault, Michel, The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979, ed. Senellart, Michel, trans. Burchell, Graham (New York, 2008);Google Scholar Oksala, Johanna, “From Biopower to Governmentality,” in A Companion to Foucault, ed. Falzon, Christopher, O’Leary, Timothy, and Sawicki, Jana (Malden, Mass., 2013), chap. 15.Google Scholar
14. John, “American Political Development and Political History,” offers an overview and interpretation of recent scholarship.
15. A recent example is Beckert, Sven and Rockman, Seth, eds., Slavery’s Capitalism: A New History of American Economic Development (Philadelphia, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Clark, Christopher, Social Change in America: From the Revolution Through the Civil War (Chicago, 2006), chap. 4.Google Scholar
16. Clemens, Elisabeth S., “Lineages of the Rube Goldberg State: Building and Blurring Public Programs, 1900–1940,” in Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Skowronek, Stephen, and Galvin, Daniel (New York, 2006), 187–215.Google Scholar
17. Putnam, Robert D., Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, 2000),Google Scholar quote at 19; Seligman, Adam B., The Problem of Trust (Princeton, 1997), esp. 75–100;Google Scholar Uslaner, Eric M., “Democracy and Social Capital,” in Warren, Mark E., ed., Democracy and Trust (New York, 1999), 121–50;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Fukuyama, Francis, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (New York, 1995),Google Scholar esp. 3–12. For discussions about the definition(s) of social capital, see Farr, John, “Social Capital: A Conceptual History,” Political Theory 32 (2004): 6–33;CrossRefGoogle Scholar John Field, Social Capital (London, 2003)
18. Wallis, Joe and Dollery, Brian, “Social Capital and Local Government Capacity,” Australian Journal of Public Administration 61, no. 3 (September 2002): 76–85;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Putnam, Robert D. with Leonardi, Robert and Nanetti, Raffaella Y., Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, 1993).Google Scholar
19. On the emergence of bureaucratic autonomy, see Carpenter, Daniel, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928 (Princeton, 2001).Google Scholar
20. Bloch, Ruth H. and Lamoreaux, Naomi R., “Voluntary Associations, Corporate Rights, and the State: Legal Constraints on the Development of American Civil Society, 1750–1900,” in Organizations, Civil Society, and the Roots of Development, ed. Lamoreaux, and Joseph Wallis, John (Chicago, 2017),Google Scholar chap. 7; Salamon, Lester M., Sokolowski, S. Wojciech, and Haddock, Megan A., Explaining Civil Society Development: A Social Origins Approach (Baltimore, 2017);Google Scholar Butterfield, Kevin, The Making of Tocqueville’s America: Law and Association in the Early United States (Chicago, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “Law and Voluntary Association in the Early United States,” in Organizing Democracy: Reflections on the Rise of Political Organizations in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Henk Te Velde and Maartje Janse (Leiden, 2017), 85–103; Neem, Creating a Nation of Joiners; Novak, William J., “The American Law of Association: The Legal-Political Construction of Civil Society,” Studies in American Political Development 15, no. 2 (2001): 163–88;CrossRefGoogle Scholar John, Spreading the News; Schudson, Michael, “The ‘Public Sphere’ and Its Problems: Bringing the State (Back) In,” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy 8 (1994): 529–46.Google Scholar
21. Brooke, John L. “Patriarchal Magistrates, Associated Improvers, and Monitoring Militias: Visions of Self-Government in the Early American Republic, 1760–1840,” in State and Citizen: British America and the Early United States, ed. Thompson, Peter and Onuf, Peter S. (Charlottesville, 2013), 178–217,Google Scholar quote at 199. See also Neem, Creating a Nation of Joiners, chap. 5. Parrillo, Nicholas R., Against the Profit Motive: The Salary Revolution in American Government, 1780–1940 (New Haven, 2013), 24–33,CrossRefGoogle Scholar like Brooke, distinguishes between “familiar” and “alien” forms of state power, the former based in community relations, the latter based on agents of a more distant state.
22. Thus, in addition to civic labor, enslaved labor helped develop state capacity. See Quintana, Ryan A., “Slavery and the Conceptual History of the U.S. State,” Journal of the Early Republic 38, no. 1 (Spring 2018): 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. For an overview of the historiographical landscape, see Johann N., Neem, “State of the Field: What Is the Legacy of the Common Schools Movement? Revisiting Carl Kaestle’s 1983 Pillars of the Republic,” Reviews in American History 44, no. 2 (June 2016): 342–55.Google Scholar
24. Lindert, Peter, “The Rise of Mass Public Schooling Before 1914,” in Growing Public: Volume 1: Social Spending and Economic Growth since the Eighteenth Century (New York, 2004),CrossRefGoogle Scholar chap. 5. On comparing Prussia and the United States, see also Herbst, Jürgen, School Choice and School Governance: A Historical Study of the U.S. and Germany (New York, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Goldin, Claudia and Katz, Lawrence F., “The ‘Virtues’ of the Past: Education in the First Hundred Years of the New Republic,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 9958 (2003);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Goldin, and Katz, , The Race Between Education and Technology (Cambridge, Mass., 2008).Google Scholar See also Fischel, William, Making the Grade: The Economic Evolution of American School Districts (Chicago, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Tyack, David B., “The Tribe and the Common School: Community Control in Rural Education,” American Quarterly 24, no. 1 (March 1972): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Herbst, Jürgen, “Nineteenth-Century Schools Between Community and State: The Cases of Prussia and the United States,” History of Education Quarterly 42, no. 3 (Fall 2002): 317–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Steffes, Tracy, School, Society and State: A New Education to Govern Modern America, 1890–1940 (Chicago, 2012);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Tyack, David and James, Thomas, “State Government and American Public Education: Exploring the ‘Primeval Forest,’” History of Education Quarterly 26, no. 1 (Spring 1986): 36–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Beadie, Nancy, “Education, Social Capital, and State Formation in Comparative Historical Perspective,” Pedagogica Historica 46, no. 1–2 (February–April 2010): 15–32,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Education and the Creation of Capital in the Early American Republic (New York, 2010).
30. Mathews, David, Why Public Schools? Whose Public Schools? What Early Communities Have to Tell Us (Montgomery, 2002): 134,Google Scholar 107–13, 124–26 (more generally, see chaps. 6–8); Thornton, J. Mills III, Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama 1800–1860 (Baton Rouge, 1978): 293–95, 300–302.Google Scholar
31. The following discussion is taken from Neem, Johann N., Democracy’s Schools: The Rise of Public Education in America (Baltimore, 2017): chap. 3.Google Scholar
32. John, “Governmental Institutions as Agents of Change.”
33. I make this argument in detail in Neem, Johann N., “Path Dependence and the Emergence of Common Schools: Ohio to 1853,” Journal of Policy History 28 (2016): 48–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Einhorn, Robin, American Taxation, American Slavery (Chicago, 2008).Google Scholar
35. Neem, Democracy’s Schools, 72–75, 91–92.
36. Wells, Jonathan D., The Origins of the Southern Middle Class, 1800–1861 (Chapel Hill, 2004), chap. 4;Google Scholar Deal, John G., “Middle-Class Benevolent Societies in Antebellum Norfolk, Virginia,” in The Southern Middle Class in the Long Nineteenth Century, ed. Wells, Jonathan Daniel and Green, Jennifer R. (Baton Rouge, 2011), 84–104;Google Scholar Neem, Johann N., “Civil Society and American Nationalism, 1776–1865,” in Politics and Partnerships: The Role of Voluntary Associations in America’s Political Past and Present, ed. Elisabeth Clemens and Doug Guthrie (Chicago, 2011), 29–53;Google Scholar Lockley, Timothy, Welfare and Charity in the Antebellum South (Gainesville, 2007);Google Scholar Quist, John W., Restless Visionaries: The Social Roots of Antebellum Reform in Alabama and Michigan (Baton Rouge, 1998);Google Scholar Varon, Elizabeth, We Mean to Be Counted: White Women and Politics in Antebellum Virginia (Chapel Hill, 1998);Google Scholar Lebsock, Suzanne, The Free Women of Petersburg: Status and Culture in a Southern Town, 1784–1860 (New York, 1984).Google Scholar Less appealing evidence is the capacity of white Southerners to associate to provide slave patrols. See Hadden, Sally, Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas (Cambridge, Mass., 2001);Google Scholar Wallenstein, Peter, From Slave South to New South: Public Policy in Nineteenth-Century Georgia (Chapel Hill, 1987), 43–44.Google Scholar
37. Mathisen, Erik, “Pledges of Allegiance: State Formation in Mississippi between Slavery and Redemption” (PhD. diss.: University of Pennsylvania, 2009);Google Scholar Richardson, John G., “Settlement Patterns and Governing Structures of Nineteenth-Century School Systems,” American Journal of Education 92, no. 2 (February 1984): 178–206;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Porter, Albert Ogden, County Government in Virginia: A Legislative History, 1607–1904 (New York, 1947): 155–226;Google Scholar Sydnor, Charles, Gentlemen Freeholders: Political Practices in Washington’s Virginia (Chapel Hill, 1952),Google Scholar esp. chap. 6; Ireland, Robert M., The County Courts in Antebellum Kentucky (Lexington, Ky., 1972).Google Scholar
38. Ford, Lacy K., “Ideology of the Old South’s Plain Folk,” in Plain Folk of the Old South Revisited, ed. Hyde, Samuel C. Jr. (Baton Rouge, 1997), 205–27;Google Scholar Green, Fletcher M., “Democracy in the Old South,” Journal of Southern History 12, no. 1 (1946): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. I thank Jonathan Daniel Wells for reminding me of this connection. On southern anxieties, see Michael O’Brien, Conjectures of Order: Intellectual Life and the American South, 2 vols. (Chapel Hill, 2004). On nationalism and textbooks, see Nash, Margaret, “Contested Identities: Nationalism, Regionalism, and Patriotism in Early American Textbooks,” History of Education Quarterly 49, no. 4 (November 2009): 417–41;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Whitescarver, Keith, “Schoolbooks, Publishers, and Southern Nationalists: Reforming the Curriculum in North Carolina’s Schools, 1850–1861,” North Carolina Historical Review 79, no. 1 (January 2002): 28–49.Google Scholar
40. Malczewski, Joan, Building a New Educational State: Foundations, Schools, and the American South (Chicago, 2016);Google Scholar Rooks, Noliwe, Cutting School: Privatization, Segregation, and the End of Public Education (New York, 2017), chap. 2.Google Scholar
41. On this trend, see Neem, Democracy’s Schools, 161–72; Moss, Hilary J., Schooling Citizens: The Struggle for African American Education in Antebellum America (Chicago, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Neem, Democracy’s Schools, 88.
43. Hurst, J. W., The Growth of the American Law: The Law Makers (Boston, 1950), 93.Google Scholar
44. Gillis, Brendan, “Conduits of Justice: Magistrates and the British Imperial State, 1732–1834” (PhD diss.: Indiana University, 2015).Google Scholar
45. On police power, see note 3 above.
46. Edwards, Laura, The People and Their Peace: Legal Culture and the Transformation of Inequality in the Post-Revolutionary South (Chapel Hill, 2009), 3–7.Google Scholar
47. Edwards, People, 47–53.
48. Ibid., 5–7, 65–66.
49. On this point, in addition to Edwards, People (quote at 7), see also Jones, Martha S., Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America (New York, 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. Edwards, People, 11.
51. Zimmerman, Jonathan, Small Wonder: The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory (New Haven, 2009).Google Scholar
52. McNamara, Martha, From Taverns to Courthouse: Architecture and Ritual in American Law, 1658–1860 (Baltimore, 2004), 2–3.Google Scholar
53. Edwards, People, 67.
54. Ibid., 68–74.
55. Ibid., 90.
56. Dale, Elizabeth, Criminal Justice in the United States, 1789–1939 (New York, 2011), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For other examples, see Malka, Adam, The Men of Mobtown: Policing Baltimore in the Age of Slavery and Emancipation (Chapel Hill, 2018), 30–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57. Steinberg, Allen, The Transformation of Criminal Justice, Philadelphia, 1800–1880 (Chapel Hill, 1989), 1–3.Google Scholar On this point, see also Ireland, Robert M., “Privately Funded Prosecution of Crime in the Nineteenth-Century United States,” American Journal of Legal History 39, no. 1 (January 1995): 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58. Malka, Men of Mobtown, chap. 1, quotes at 19, 30.
59. Steinberg, Transformation, 120.
60. Ibid., 120–21, 148–49.
61. A good overview can be found in Johnson, David R., American Law Enforcement: A History (St. Louis, 1981).Google Scholar Johnson argues that the rise of professional police forces enabled the public sector to protect the peace not only more effectively but also in better alignment with the rule of law. The big shift he notes is from an era of citizen-officers who responded to crimes when called upon by justices of the peace and other local magistrates, to professional police forces designed to prevent criminal activity. In contrast, Malka, Mob Town, 62–85, 176–86, cautions against drawing too stark a distinction between popular and professional policing, noting that both reinforced the white male citizenry’s oversight of black people and relied on extralegal forms of violence. In Baltimore, “white popular policing” (176) continued to thrive even as Baltimore created a salaried police force.
62. Wilson and Livingston, quoted in Kopel, David B., “The Posse Comitatus and the Office of Sheriff: Armed Citizens Summoned to the Aid of Law Enforcement,” Journal of Crime and Criminology 104, no. 4 (2015), at 793, 795;Google Scholar Rao, Gautham, “The Federal Posse Comitatus Doctrine: Slavery, Compulsion, and Statecraft in Mid-Nineteenth-Century America,” Law and History Review 26, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 1–56,CrossRefGoogle Scholar esp. 9–15.
63. Hadden, Slave Patrols. Hammond quoted at 6.
64. Hadden, Slave Patrols, 45–47, 73–79, 102–4.
65. Quintana, “Slavery and the Conceptual History of the Early U.S. State”; Samantha Seeley, “Freedom, Race, and Forced Migration in the Early American Republic” (PhD diss.: New York University, 2014).
66. Discussion of New York from Johnson, American Law Enforcement, 26–27.
67. Johnson, American Law Enforcement, 28–31. On how professionalized police forces served to reinforce white supremacy, see Malka, Men of Mobtown.
68. Rao, “The Federal Posse Comitatus Doctrine.” Discussing customs officials, Parrillo, Against the Profit Motive, chap. 6, argues that when federal officers were locally situated, they could rely on their status and networks to enforce duties, but, as customs officers became more distant partisan appointments, they lost the capacity for effective enforcement because they lost their connections to the community. On customs officers, see also Rao, , National Duties: Customs Houses and the Making of the American State (Chicago, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69. Dale, Criminal Justice, chaps. 3–4, quote at 39.
70. Griffin, Patrick, American Leviathan: Empire, Nation, and Revolutionary Frontier (New York, 2007).Google Scholar
71. Paul, Gilje, Rioting in America (Bloomington, 1996);Google Scholar Malka, Men of Mobtown.
72. Dale, Criminal Justice, chaps. 3–4. On frontier justice, see Roth, Randolph, American Homicide (Cambridge, Mass., 2009), chap. 5.Google Scholar
73. Higgins, Cindy, “Frontier Protection and Social Network: The Anti-Horse Thief Association in Kansas,” Journal of the West 42, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 63–73.Google Scholar
74. See Brooke, , Columbia Rising: Civil Life on the Upper Hudson from the Revolution to the Age of Jackson (Chapel Hill, 2010);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Neem, “Creating Social Capital in the Early American Republic: The View from Connecticut,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 39, no. 4 (Spring 2009): 471–95; Roth, , The Democratic Dilemma: Religion, Reform, and the Social Order in the Connecticut River Valley of Vermont, 1791–1850 (New York, 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar No doubt, when order risked becoming anarchy, citizens also urged and welcomed more top-down authority. On this point, see also Griffin, American Leviathan.
75. John, Rachel St., “State Power in the West in the Early American Republic,” Journal of the Early Republic 38, no. 1 (Spring 2018): 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
76. Saler, Bethel, The Settlers’ Empire: Colonialism and State Formation in America’s Old Northwest (Philadelphia, 2015), 9.Google Scholar
77. Laver, Harry S., “Rethinking the Social Role of the Militia: Community-Building in Antebellum Kentucky,” Journal of Southern History 68, no. 4 (November 2002): 777–816,CrossRefGoogle Scholar quotes at 786, 788, 799–800. See also McCreedy, Kenneth, “Palladium of Liberty: The American Militia System, 1815–1861” (PhD diss.: U.C. Berkeley, 1991), chap. 12,Google Scholar on the voluntary militia’s law-enforcement activities.
78. McCreedy, “Palladium of Liberty.”
79. Gerstle, Liberty and Coercion, 37–38; McCreedy, “Palladium of Liberty,” chap. 13.
80. For discussions on more recent eras, see Kramer, Catherine, The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker (Chicago, 2016);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Berger, Peter and Neuhaus, Richard John, To Empower People: From State to Civil Society (Washington, D.C., 1996).Google Scholar
81. See Neem, Creating a Nation of Joiners, chaps. 5–6; Brooke, “Patriarchal Magistrates”; Parrillo, Against the Profit Motive.
82. On the idea of coproduction and its relation to social capital, see Marschall, Melissa J., “Citizen Participation and the Neighborhood Context: A New Look at the Coproduction of Local Public Goods,” Political Research Quarterly 57, no. 2 (June 2004): 231–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar