Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T10:32:58.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The United States Military, State Development, and Slavery in the Early Republic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2017

David F. Ericson
David F. Ericson*
Affiliation:
Cleveland State University
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The U.S. military was the principal agent of American state development in the seven decades between 1791 and 1861. It fought wars, removed Native Americans, built internal improvements, expedited frontier settlement, deterred slave revolts, returned fugitive slaves, and protected existing property relations. These activities promoted state development along multiple axes, increasing the administrative capacities, institutional autonomy, political legitimacy, governing authority, and coercive powers of the American state. Unfortunately, the American political development literature has largely ignored the varied ways in which the presence of slavery influenced military deployments and, in turn, state development during the pre–Civil War period.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , April 2017 , pp. 130 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I wish to acknowledge the assistance of Gary Gerstle, Tom Ogorzalek, Toni Travis, and the members of research workshops at the University of Albany, National Capital Political Science Association, and Harvard University's Center for American Political Studies for their comments on earlier versions of this article. The editors of this journal and three external reviewers were extremely helpful in the revision process. Finally, I am grateful to the University Press of Kansas for permission to reuse material from my book, Slavery in the American Republic: Building the Federal Government, 1791–1861 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2011), in this article.

References

1. See Edling, Max M., A Revolution in Favor of Government: Origins of the U.S. Constitution and the Making of the American State (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Edling, Max M., A Hercules in the Cradle: War, Money, and the American State, 1783–1867 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Katznelson, Ira, “The Possibilities of Analytical Political History,” in The Democratic Experiment: New Directions in American Political History, ed. Jacobs, Meg, Novak, William J., and Zelizer, Julian E. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), 388–89Google Scholar; Katznelson, Ira, “Flexible Capacity: The Military and Early American Statebuilding,” in Shaped by War and Trade: International Influences on American Political Development, ed. Katznelson, Ira and Shefter, Martin (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), 82–110 Google Scholar; Mayhew, David R., “Wars and American Politics,” Perspectives on Politics 3, no. 3 (2005): 475–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pollack, Sheldon D., War, Revenue, and State-building: Financing the Development of the American State (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008), 185–210 Google Scholar. On early-modern Europe, see Downing, Brian M., The Military Revolution and Political Change (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Ertman, Thomas, Birth of the Leviathan: Building States and Regimes in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Finer, Samuel E., “State- and Nation-Building in Europe: The Role of the Military,” in The Formation of National States in Western Europe, ed. Tilly, Charles (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), 84–163 Google Scholar; Glete, Jan, War and the State in Early Modern Europe: Spain, the Dutch Republic and Sweden as Fiscal-Military States, 1500–1660 (New York: Routledge, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1990 (Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1990)Google Scholar; Tilly, Charles, “War Making and State Making As Organized Crime,” in Bringing the State Back In, ed. Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 169–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. In a note, Katznelson refers to the relationship between the presence of slavery and military actions as an area for future research. See Katznelson, “Flexible Capacity,” 106, n. 13. Nonetheless, a recent forum on the U.S. military and state development ignores that relationship. See “The Military in American Political Development,” Studies in American Political Development 26 (2012): 107–204 Google Scholar. While this study focuses exclusively on the federal level, the presence or absence of slavery also had powerful effects on state development on the state level, such as on issues of apportionment and taxation. See Einhorn, Robin L., American Taxation, American Slavery (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006)Google Scholar, chap. 6; Einhorn, Robin L., “Species of Property: The American Property-Tax Uniformity Clauses Reconsidered,” Journal of Economic History 61 (2001): 974–1008 Google Scholar; Fehrenbacher, Don E., Constitutions and Constitutionalism in the Slaveholding South (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Scalia, Laura J., America's Jeffersonian Experiment: Remaking State Constitutions, 1820–1850 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Scalia, Laura J., “Who Deserves Political Influence? How Liberal Ideas Helped Justify Mid Nineteenth-Century Exclusionary Policies,” American Journal of Political Science 42 (1998): 349–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tarr, Alan G., Understanding State Constitutions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998)Google Scholar, chap. 4.

3. See Bensel, Richard Franklin, Yankee Leviathan: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, 1859–1877 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 13, 63;Google Scholar Einhorn, American Taxation, 7–8; 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, Bryon E. and Badger, Anthony J. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2001), 21–22 Google Scholar; Holt, Michael F., The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War (New York: Oxford, 1999), 5Google Scholar; Huston, James L., Calculating the Value of the Union: Slavery, Property Rights and the Economic Origins of the Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002), 22Google Scholar; John, Richard R., “‘Affairs of Office’: The Executive Departments, the Election of 1828, and the Making of the Democratic Party,” in The Democratic Experiment: New Directions in American Political History, ed. Jacobs, Meg, Novak, William J., and Zelizer, Julian E. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), 67Google Scholar; Orren, Karen and Skowronek, Stephen, The Search for American Political Development (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sellers, Charles Grier, The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815–1846 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 277Google Scholar.

4. See Bensel, Yankee Leviathan, 36, 63, 85, 99; Carpenter, Daniel R., The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputation, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1920 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar, chap. 2; Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992), 67–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982)Google Scholar, chap. 2. For revisionist views of American state development (beside the works cited in note 1), see Balogh, Brian, A Government Out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Dauber, Michele Landis, The Sympathetic State: Disaster Relief and the Origins of the American Welfare State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013)Google Scholar; Jensen, Laura, Patriots, Settlers, and the Origins of American Social Policy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; John, Richard R., “Governmental Institutions as Agents of Change: Rethinking American Political Development in the Early Republic, 1787–1835,” Studies in American Political Development 11 (1997): 347–80Google Scholar; Mashaw, Jerry L., Creating the Administrative Constitution: The Lost One Hundred Years of American Administrative Law (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012)Google Scholar; Rockwell, Stephen J., Indian Affairs and the Administrative State in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar. For a more general discussion of the “weak state” theme, see Exchange, AHR, “On the ‘Myth’ of the ‘Weak’ American State,” American Historical Review 115 (2010): 766–800 Google Scholar; Novak, William J., “The Myth of the ‘Weak’ American State,” American Historical Review 113 (2008): 752–72Google Scholar.

5. The starting point is the first fiscal year under the new Constitution, as reported in the Census Bureau's Historical Statistics of the United States, which combines 1789–91 into one fiscal year. The end point is the last fiscal year before the Civil War, July 1, 1860–June 30, 1861. I refer to those seven decades as “the pre–Civil War period” based on the existence of the United States as a nation divided almost equally between free and slave states during that time. The Civil War acted as a critical juncture in American state development, most obviously but certainly not exclusively in foreclosing slavery-related development. See Bensel, Yankee Leviathan, chaps. 3–6; Edling, Hercules in the Cradle, chap. 6; Mayhew, “Wars and American Politics,” 476–77; Pollack, War and State-building; 210–31; Porter, Bruce D., War and the Rise of the State: The Military Foundations of Modern Politics (New York: Free Press, 1984), 257–64Google Scholar.

6. For these measures of state development, see Bensel, Yankee Leviathan, 106–14; D. R. Carpenter, Bureaucratic Autonomy, 5–7; Orren and Skowronek, American Political Development, 123–31; Pollack, War and State-building, 39–40; Skowronek, New American State, 19–20. In the following, I examine the impact U.S. military actions had on multiple measures of state development on the assumption states develop unevenly; they can be relatively weak on one measure and strong on others. See Katznelson, “Flexible Capacity,” 85–89, 102–04.

7. See Historical Statistics of the United States Millennial Edition Online, tables Ea636–43 (federal government expenditure, by major function: 1789–1970); Ea894–903 (federal government employees, by government branch and location relative to the capital, 1816–1992); Ed26–47 (military personnel on active duty, by branch of service and sex: 1789–1995), http://hsus.cambridge.org. The civilian employment table dictated the 1816–51 timeframe as it only begins in 1816 and then lists the totals at ten-year intervals from 1821 to 1881. I did not use 1861 as a comparison year because the beginning of the Civil War disproportionately increased the military side of the equation. In 1851, the Post Office was the largest federal employer.

8. Louis Hartz famously, and controversially, made this anti-statist argument about American political culture but in less static and univocal forms it seems generally accepted in the APD literature. See Bensel, Yankee Leviathan, 63; Ericson, David F., “Liberalism and American Political Development,” in Oxford Handbook of American Political Development, ed. Lieberman, Robert C., Mettler, Suzanne, and Valelly, Rick (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 96–111 Google Scholar; Greenstone, J. David, “Political Culture and American Political Development: Liberty, Union, and the Liberal Bipolarity,” Studies in American Political Development 1 (1986): 1–49 Google Scholar; Hartz, Louis, The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought Since the Revolution (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1955)Google Scholar; Orren and Skowronek, American Political Development, 28–29; Pollack, War and State-building, 106–07.

9. See Richardson, James D., ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789–1897 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1896), II: 519–22Google Scholar; quote at 519 (“Annual Message to Congress,” December 6, 1830).

10. See Balogh, Government Out of Sight; chap. 5; Clemens, Elisabeth S., “Lineages of the Rube Goldberg State: Building and Blurring Public Programs, 1900–1940,” in The Art of the State: Rethinking Political Institutions, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Skowronek, Stephen, and Galvin, Daniel (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 187–214 Google Scholar. While Clemens focuses on a later era of American history, her argument applies as well to the pre–Civil War period. Balogh's work parallels several earlier studies of the army's frontier role. See Goetzmann, William H., Army Exploration in the American West, 1803–1863 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1959)Google Scholar; Klyza, Christopher McCrory, “The United States Army, Natural Resources, and Political Development in the Nineteenth Century,” Polity 35 (2002): 1–28 Google Scholar; Prucha, Francis Paul, The Sword of the Republic, The United States Army on the Frontier, 1783–1846 (New York: Macmillan, 1969)Google Scholar; Tate, Michael L., The Frontier Army in the Settlement of the West (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Utley, Robert M., Frontiersmen in Blue: The United States Army and the Indian, 1848–1865 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Watson, Samuel J., “The Uncertain Road to Manifest Destiny: Army Officers and the Course of American Territorial Expansionism, 1815–1846,” in Manifest Destiny and Empire: American Antebellum Expansionism, ed. Haynes, Sam W. and Morris, Christopher (College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1997), 115–45Google Scholar.

11. In the case of the postal service, the presence of slavery affected how the service was performed during the abolitionist mailings controversy. See John, Richard R., Spreading the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995)Google Scholar, chap. 7. Similarly, the institution strongly influenced public-land policies. See Frymer, Paul, “‘A Rush and a Push and the Land Is Ours': Territorial Expansion, Land Policy, and U.S. State Formation,” Perspectives on Politics 12 (2014): 119–44Google Scholar.

12. Even in the case of the third major American war during this period, the presence of slavery affected how it was fought. During the War of 1812, the governors of at least one Southern state (Georgia) and territory (Mississippi) refused to allow their militia to be deployed elsewhere for fear that slaves would exploit the opportunity to revolt or escape. See Tommy Richard Young II, “The United States Army in the South, 1789–1835” (PhD diss., Louisiana State University, 1973), 477–78.

13. See Einhorn, American Taxation, chaps. 4–5; Einhorn, Robin L., “Slavery and the Politics of Taxation in the Early United States,” Studies in American Political Development 14 (2000): 156–83Google Scholar.

14. Einhorn herself identified several other reasons for the failure of the first direct tax, including disputes over how to fairly assess the value of houses. See Einhorn, American Taxation, 192–94, 199. On the complications in the internal-improvements case, see Baker, Pamela L., “The Washington National Road Bill and the Struggle to Adopt a Federal System of Internal Improvement,” Journal of the Early Republic 22 (2004): 437–64Google Scholar; Goodrich, Carter, Government Promotion of American Canals and Railroads, 1800–1890 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960), 45–46 Google Scholar; Larson, John Lauritz, Internal Improvement: National Public Works and the Promise of Popular Government in the Early United States (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 226–27Google Scholar; Minicucci, Stephen, “Internal Improvements and the Union, 1790–1860,” Studies in American Political Development, 18 (2004): 165–80Google Scholar. But cf. Mulcare, Daniel M., “Restricted Authority: Slavery Politics, Internal Improvements, and the Limitation of National Administrative Capacity,” Political Research Quarterly 61 (2008): 671–85Google Scholar.

15. See Fehrenbacher, Don E., The Slaveholding Republic: An Account of the United States Government's Relations to Slavery (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar. For the exceptional nature of the United States as a “house divided,” see Marx, Anthony W., Making Race and Nation: A Comparison of the United States, South Africa, and Brazil (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 41–42 Google Scholar. Yet typically, Marx only considers how the presence of slavery depressed state development. See Marx, Making Race, 60, 120.

16. On the logic of such counterfactual claims, see Bunzl, Martin, “Counterfactual History: A User's Guide,” American Historical Review 109 (2004): 845–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fearon, James D., “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science,” World Politics 43 (1992): 169–95Google Scholar; Fischer, David Hackett, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 15–21 Google Scholar. Although I believe the institution's impact on state development was more expansive than depressive, it is beyond the scope of this study to attempt to quantify those relative effects. In Slavery in the American Republic, I explored the influence the presence of slavery had on state development more comprehensively.

17. See Congressional Globe, 25th Cong., 3rd Sess., 1839, 321–23, app.; 26th Cong., 1st Sess., 1840, 659–67, app.; 26th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1841, 154–62, app.

18. See Carlson, Leonard and Roberts, Mark A., “Indian Lands, ‘Squatterism’ and Slavery: Economic Interests and the Passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830,” Explorations in Economic History 43 (2006): 500–01Google Scholar; Garrison, Tim Allen, “United States Indian Policy in Sectional Crisis: Georgia's Exploitation of the Compact of 1802,” in Congress and the Emergence of Sectionalism: From the Missouri Compromise to the Age of Jackson, ed. Finkelman, Paul and Kennon, Donald R. (Akron: Ohio University Press, 2008), 101, 104Google Scholar; Parsons, Lynn Hudson, “‘A Perpetual Harrow upon My Feelings': John Quincy Adams and the American Indians,” New England Quarterly 46 (1973): 361–62Google Scholar; Portnoy, Alisse, Their Right to Speak: Women's Activism in the Indian and Slave Debates (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 165–66Google Scholar.

19. See Heidler, David S. and Heidler, Jeanne T., The Mexican War (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006), 75Google Scholar; Schroeder, John H., Mr. Polk's War: American Opposition and Dissent, 1846–1848 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973), 153Google Scholar.

20. See Hamilton, Holman, Prologue to Conflict: The Crisis and Compromise of 1850 (New York: Norton, 1964), 161–64Google Scholar; Holt, Whig Party, 537–38, 542–43; S. Rep. No. 356, 33rd Cong., 1st Sess., 1854.

21. See Burch, Philip H. Jr., , Elites in American History, vol. 1, The Federalist Years to the Civil War (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1981), 236–37Google Scholar, table 1 and 335–48, app. B; Fehrenbacher, Slaveholding Republic, 132; Fehrenbacher, Don E., The South and Three Sectional Crises (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980), 46Google Scholar. The Southern proportion of the total European American population of the country was only 26 percent in the 1860 census. See Historical Statistics, table Aa36–92 (Population, by region and urban-rural residence: 1790–1990).

22. See Campbell, Stanley W., The Slave Catchers: Enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, 1850–1860 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 97–98, 106Google Scholar; Coakley, Robert W., The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1789–1878 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1988), 134Google Scholar; Collison, Gary, Shadrach Minkins: From Fugitive Slave to Citizen (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 139–41Google Scholar.

23. See Egerton, Douglas R., He Shall Go Out Free: The Lives of Denmark Vesey, rev. ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), 171–72Google Scholar; Starobin, Robert S., “Denmark Vesey's Slave Conspiracy of 1822: A Study in Rebellion and Repression,” in American Slavery: The Question of Resistance, ed. Bracey, John H. Jr., Meier, August, and Rudwick, Elliott (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1971), 148–49Google Scholar; Young, “Army in the South,” 501, 510–11, 513.

24. See Missall, John and Missall, Mary Lou, The Seminole Wars: America's Longest Indian Conflict (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2004), 118Google Scholar; Winders, Richard Bruce, Mr. Polk's Army: The American Military Experience in the Mexican War (College Station: Texas A & M Press, 1997), 16Google Scholar.

25. See Channing, Steven A., Crisis of Fear: Secession in South Carolina (New York: Norton, 1974), 236–37Google Scholar; Fehrenbacher, Slaveholding Republic, 295–96; Holt, Michael F., The Political Crisis of the 1850s (New York: Norton, 1978), 224–25Google Scholar; Freehling, William W., The Road to Disunion, vol. 2, Secessionists Triumphant (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 336–37Google Scholar.

26. Both Fehrenbacher and Matthew Mason depict Adams as a “bulldog” in pursuing those claims. See Fehrenbacher, Slaveholding Republic, 93–96; Mason, Matthew E., “The Battle of the Slaveholding Liberators: Great Britain, the United States, and Slavery in the Early Nineteenth Century,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 59 (2002): 675–76Google Scholar; Mason, Matthew E., Slavery and Politics in the Early American Republic (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 93Google Scholar. On the slave-power theme, see Richards, Leonard L., The Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780–1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

27. See Adams, Charles Francis, ed., The Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Comprising Portions of His Diary from 1795 to 1848 (1874–77; repr. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1969), 10: 256 Google Scholar (April 7, 1840); XII: 262–63 (May 11, 1846); Parsons, “Perpetual Harrow,” 374–75; Schroeder, Polk's War, 29–30.

28. See Skowronek, New American State, 25–29.

29. See Cusick, James G., The Other War of 1812: The Patriot War and the American Invasion of Spanish East Florida (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2003), 46–48 Google Scholar, 72–73, 82–83, 89. Madison had already sanctioned the illegal occupation of Spanish West Florida, from Baton Rouge to Mobile. See Cusick, Other War, 3–4.

30. See Cusick, Other War, 91–92, 120–25, 138, 287–91.

31. See Missall and Missall, Seminole Wars, 24. The Black Seminole were African Americans residing in Florida who were loosely associated with the Seminole nation. Many were free persons; others were slaves of the Seminole. They, however, typically lived independently in their own communities, even when they were slaves. The processes by which they became Black Seminole also varied. Many were either fugitive or “stolen” slaves of European Americans, but others were free blacks who had migrated to maroon communities in Florida or slaves whom the Seminole had acquired in other ways. An estimated 4,900 Seminole, including 800 Black Seminole, lived in Florida prior to the Second Seminole War. See Doran, Michael F., “Negro Slaves of the Five Civilized Tribes,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 68 (1978): 346 Google Scholar, table 2; Missall and Missall, Seminole Wars, 10–12; Porter, Kenneth W., The Black Seminole: History of a Freedom-Seeking People (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1996), 28Google Scholar.

32. See Covington, James W., “The Negro Fort,” Gulf Coast Historical Review 5 (1990): 79–91 Google Scholar; Missall and Missall, Seminole Wars, 28–31. At least 200 blacks died in the explosion. See Covington, “Negro Fort,” 86.

33. See H.R. Doc. No. 14, 15th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1818, 58; Missall and Missall, Seminole Wars, 38–43, 48–50; Porter, Black Seminole, 20–24.

34. See S. Ex. Doc. No. 82, 33rd Cong., 1st Sess., 1854; S. Ex. Doc. 158, 48th Cong., 1st Sess., 1884. Unless otherwise indicated, I rounded all expenditures to the nearest dollar. The federal government did not pay the claims from the 1814 incursion because Congress decided it was a legitimate War of 1812 operation. See Moore, John Bassett, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been a Party (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1898), 5: 4528Google Scholar.

35. See Kappler, Charles J., Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1904), 204Google Scholar.

36. See Carter, Clarence Edwin, ed., The Territorial Papers of the United States (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1934–1969), 24: 633Google Scholar (Petition to Acting Governor [James D.] Westcott by Citizens of Jefferson County, January 18, 1832). See also Carter, Territorial Papers, 22: 762–64 (Petition to the president by inhabitants of the territory, October 4, 1823), 22: 857–58 (Petition to Congress by the Inhabitants of East Florida, March 8, 1824), 23: 434 (Delegate Joseph M. White to the Secretary of War [James Barbour], January 31, 1826), 23: 462–63 (Memorial to the President [John Quincy Adams] by the Inhabitants of St. Johns County, March 26, 1826), 23: 717 (White to Thomas L. McKenney, General Superintendent of Indian Affairs, January 7, 1827), 23: 1003 (Report of the Legislative Council of Indian Affairs, January 17, 1828), 24: 6 (White to the Secretary of War, May 1, 1828); 24: 667–68 (Memorial to Congress by the Legislative Council, February 1832), 23: 679 (Memorial to Congress by Inhabitants of the Territory, March 26, 1832).

37. See Kappler, Indian Affairs, 344–45.

38. Federal officials insisted on settling the Seminole on western Creek lands because they considered them part of the Creek nation despite the less than amicable relations between the two groups. See Missall and Missall, Seminole Wars, 84–85; Porter, Black Seminole, 32–33.

39. See Missall and Missall, Seminole Wars, 128–30, 132–33, 200–02.

40. As we will see, one group of Creek violently resisted removal for a brief time.

41. See Klos, George, “Blacks and the Seminole Removal Debates, 1821–1835,” Florida Historical Quarterly 68 (1989): 55Google Scholar. In fact, local army officers had urged delaying any attempt to forcibly remove the Seminole from Florida. Later, Jesup recommended ending the war in 1838 and establishing a Seminole reservation in southern Florida, but again territorial protests prevailed. Shortly thereafter, Jesup asked to be relieved of command. See Carter, Territorial Papers, 25: 495 (Thomas S. Jesup to the Secretary of War [Joel Poinsett], March 14, 1838); Missall and Missall, Seminole Wars, 146–52; Watson, “Uncertain Road,” 72.

42. See American State Papers: Military Affairs, 7: 760 (Jesup to B[enjamin] F. Butler, Acting Secretary of War, December 9, 1836), 821.

43. See Brown, Canter Jr., “Race Relations in Territorial Florida, 1821–1845,” Florida Historical Quarterly 73 (1995): 303–04Google Scholar; Covington, James W., The Seminole of Florida (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1993), 91Google Scholar; Klos, “Removal Debates,” 77–78; Lancaster, Jane F., Removal Aftershock: The Seminole’ Struggles to Survive in the West, 1836–1866 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1994), 18Google Scholar; Mahon, John K., History of the Second Seminole War, 1835–1842 (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1967), 201, 326Google Scholar; Missall and Missall, Seminole Wars, 180, 182; Mulroy, Kevin, Freedom on the Border: The Seminole Maroons in Florida, the Indian Territory, Coahuila, and Texas (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1993), 29Google Scholar; Porter, Black Seminole, 67; Rivers, Larry Eugene, Slavery in Florida: Territorial Days to Emancipation (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2000), 204Google Scholar; Twyman, Bruce Edward, The Black Seminole Legacy and North American Politics, 1693–1845 (Washington, DC: Howard University Press, 1999), 130Google Scholar.

44. See H.R. Doc. No. 8, 26th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1840, 7, 10, 12–13, 15; H. R. Doc. No. 247, 27th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1842, 11–12; H. R. Rep. No. 582, 28th Cong., 1st Sess., 1844, 86. The navy was involved in the war effort in a support role and, later, in attempting to flush the Seminole out of the Everglades. See Missall and Missall, Seminole Wars, 125–26, 177, 187–88.

45. See Missall and Missall, Seminole Wars, 190–91, 208–09. Approximately 300 Seminole remained in southern Florida after the conflict, which precipitated yet a Third Seminole War in 1855–57. See Missall and Missall, Seminole Wars, 200, 213–22. According to territorial Delegate Joseph M. White, dislocated settlers received $6 per month for themselves, family members, and slaves. See Congressional Globe, 25th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1838, 536, app.

46. See Sprague, John T., The Origin, Progress, and Conclusion of the Florida War (1848; repr. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1964), 268–69Google Scholar. Sprague was Worth's son-in-law.

47. See Covington, Seminole of Florida, 72; Lancaster, Removal Aftershock, 18; Mahon, Second Seminole War, 226, 326; Missall and Missall, Seminole Wars, xv; Mulroy, Freedom on the Border, 29; Porter, Black Seminole, 106; Twyman, Black Seminole Legacy, 140.

48. See Historical Statistics, table Ea636–643.

49. See Sprague, Florida War, 548–50, app. Most of the deaths were from malarial diseases contacted marching through swamps in futile pursuit of the Seminole. The army did not provide any reliable estimates of the number of combatant deaths among the Seminole. See Missall and Missall, Seminole Wars, 206.

50. See Mahon, Second Seminole War, 226, 325; Sprague, Florida War, 103–06.

51. See Sprague, Florida War, 93–95, 101–03.

52. See H.R. Doc. No. 8, 26th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1840, 12. Basic army pay was $7 per month plus provisions, while militia could earn as much as $20 per month plus provisions. See Lancaster, Jane F., “William Tecumseh Sherman's Introduction to War, 1840–1842: Lesson for Action,” Florida Historical Quarterly 72 (1993): 65Google Scholar.

53. See Sprague, Florida War, chap. 10.

54. See Mahon, Second Seminole War, 326–27; Missall and Missall, Seminole Wars, 121, 200–02, 210; Sprague, Florida War, 405 (quoting Spencer). On the increasing professionalization and institutional autonomy of the army during this period, see Adler, William D., “State Capacity and Bureaucratic Autonomy in the Early United States: The Case of the Army Corps of Topographical Engineers,” Studies in American Political Development 26 (2012): 107–24Google Scholar; Skelton, William B., An American Profession of Arms: The Army Officer Corps, 1784–1861 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1992)Google Scholar; Watson, “Uncertain Road,” 73–74, 100–01; Wilson, Mark R., “The Politics of Procurement: Military Origins of Bureaucratic Autonomy,” in Ruling Passions: Political Economy in Nineteenth-Century America, ed. John, Richard R. (University Park: Penn State University Press, 2006), 44–73 Google Scholar; Wooster, Robert, The American Military Frontiers: The United States Army and the West, 1783–1900 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2009), 103–04Google Scholar.

55. See Historical Statistics, tables Ea636–43; Ed26–47.

56. While Pollack highlights the ratchet effect of American wars, he does not mention either the Second Seminole or Mexican-American War in this context. See Pollack, War and State-building, 96, 233, 269, 296.

57. See Congressional Globe, 24th Cong., 1st Sess., 1836, 433, app.

58. See Foreman, Grant, Indian Removal: The Emigration of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians (1932; repr. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972), 286–90Google Scholar; Perdue, Theda and Green, Michael D., The Cherokee Nation and the Trail of Tears (New York: Viking, 2007), 123–27Google Scholar.

59. See Ellisor, John T., The Second Creek War: Interethnic Conflict and Collusion on a Collapsing Frontier (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2010)Google Scholar, chaps. 5–6; H.R. Doc. No. 291, 24th Cong., 1st Sess., 1836, 5; Valliere, Kenneth L., “The Creek War of 1836: A Military History,” The Chronicles of Oklahoma 57 (1979–80): 463–85Google Scholar.

60. See Carlson and Roberts, “Indian Lands,” 500–01; Rothman, Adam, Slave Country: American Expansion and the Origins of the Deep South (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 11–13, 39–42 Google Scholar, 166, 219.

61. See Hurt, R. Douglas, The Indian Frontier, 1763–1846 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2002), 165Google Scholar; McLoughlin, William G., Cherokee Renascence in the New Republic (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 430Google Scholar; Rockwell, Administrative State, 136–38, 176–77. Federal officials even encouraged plantation slavery among the southeastern Native American nations as a means of indebting them and thereby compelling them to sell their lands. See Bertl, Renate, “Native American Tribes and Their African Slaves,” in Slave Cultures and the Cultures of Slavery, ed. Palmié, Stephan (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1995), 165Google Scholar; Braund, Kathryn E. Holland, “The Creek Indians, Blacks, and Slavery,” Journal of Southern History 57 (1991): 626–30Google Scholar; O'Brien, Greg, Choctaw in a Revolutionary Age, 1750–1830 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002), 105Google Scholar; Rothman, Slave Country, 56–58.

62. See Hall, John W., Uncommon Defense: Indian Allies in the Black Hawk War (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010)Google Scholar, chap. 6; Hurt, Indian Frontier, chap. 7; Jung, Patrick J., Black Hawk War (Norman: University of Oklahoma, 2008)Google Scholar. Jung estimates the Black Hawk War costs at slightly more than $1 million. See Jung, Black Hawk War, 206.

63. See H.R. Doc. No. 191, 21st Cong., 1st Sess., 1830; H.R. Doc. No. 228, 25th Cong., 3rd Sess., 1839. For one instance of the complicated nature of these disputes, see Carter, Territorial Papers, 26: 277 ([Captain] John Page to [Commissioner of Indian Affairs] Hartley Crawford, March 3, 1841); 26: 282–83 (Secretary of War [John Bell] to [General] Walker K. Armistead, March 12, 1841); 26: 295 (Secretary of War to Armistead, March 25, 1841); 26: 374–75 (Acting Secretary of War [Albert Miller Lea] to [Colonel] William J. Worth, September 15, 1841); 26: 478–79 (Secretary of War [John C. Spencer] to Worth, May 12, 1842).

64. These are my estimates based on Department of War reports to Congress. See S. Doc. No. 59, 23rd Cong., 1st Sess., 1834, 2; H.R. Doc. No. 291, 24th Cong., 1st Sess., 1836, 5; H.R. Doc. No. 65, 27TH Cong., 3rd Sess., 1843, 2; H.R. Rep. No. 288, 27th Cong., 3rd Sess., 1843, 2; H.R. Doc. No. 107, 28th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1845, 19. To calculate the slave-removal costs, I prorated each nation's estimated removal costs by the slave percentage in its pre-removal census, Cherokee, 9; Chickasaw, 18; Choctaw, 3; and Creek, 4. There is no Seminole subtotal because the nation refused to disaggregate its population in its pre-removal census. See Doran, “Negro Slaves,” 346, table 2. My estimate also does not include members of these nations who self-removed or who moved earlier or later, nor does it include members of other nations who exited during the same timeframe. In total, approximately 90,000 Native Americans moved or were moved across the Mississippi River from 1830 through 1843. See Garrison, “Indian Policy,” 123.

65. See Historical Statistics, table Ea636–643.

66. See Doran, Michael F., “Population Statistics of Nineteenth Century Indian Territory,” The Chronicles of Oklahoma 53 (1975–76): 498 Google Scholar, table II.

67. This clause was one of the clauses Madison urged the Committee of Detail to insert into its draft constitution. See Farrand, Max, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (1911; repr. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1937), 2: 324Google Scholar.

68. See Lumpkin, Wilson, The Removal of the Cherokee Indians from Georgia (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1907), 2: 225Google Scholar.

69. See Garrison, “Indian Policy,” 117–18; Satz, Ronald N., American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1974), 3–4 Google Scholar, 11–12.

70. See Balogh, Government Out of Sight, 209–11; Katznelson, “Flexible Capacity,” 90; Richardson, Messages of the Presidents, II: 519–20; Rockwell, Administrative State, 147–48, 157–58.

71. See Balogh, Government Out of Sight, 4, 210–11; Rockwell, Administrative State, 6, 22, 132–33, 178–79; White, Richard, It's Your Misfortune and None of My Own: A New History of the American West (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press), 89Google Scholar; Wooster, Military Frontiers, 78.

72. See Foreman, Indian Removal, 291–312; Perdue and Green, Cherokee Nation, 130–39. Ross was the brother of one of the principal Cherokee leaders, John Ross. On the other southeastern removals, see DeRosier, Arthur H. Jr., The Removal of the Choctaw Indians (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1970), 149–62Google Scholar; Ellisor, Second Creek War, 279–83, 319–25, 329–34; Gibson, Arrell M., The Chickasaws (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971), 182–89Google Scholar; Lancaster, Removal Aftershock, 20–37.

73. See Miller, Robert J., Reservation Capitalism: Economic Development in Indian Country (Westport, CN: Praeger, 2012), 35–36 Google Scholar; White, It's Your Misfortune, 91–92, 111–12.

74. See Historical Statistics, tables Ed168–79 (estimated costs of U.S. wars: 1775–1992); Ea636–643. The federal fiscal year changed from the calendar year to July 1-June 30 in 1843.

75. See Historical Statistics, table Ed26–47; Nese F. DeBruyne and Anne Leland, “American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics,” Congressional Research Service (CRS), January 2, 2015, 2, table 1, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

76. See Historical Statistics, tables Ed26–47; Ea636–643.

77. See Heidler and Heidler, Mexican War, 64; McCaffrey, James M., Army of Manifest Destiny: The American Soldier in the Mexican War, 1846–1848 (New York: New York University Press, 1992), 15Google Scholar; Winders, Polk's Army, 68–69.

78. See McCaffrey, Army of Manifest Destiny, 16, 89–90, 127–29; Winders, Polk's Army, 10, 72, 86–87, 198–99.

79. See Upton, Emory, Military History of the United States (Washington, DC: Department of War, 1904), 216Google Scholar.

80. See McCaffrey, Army of Manifest Destiny, 13, 119–21; Meade, George, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Major General United States Army (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913), 1: 162Google Scholar; Winders, Polk's Army, 34, 196–98. Smith had actually commanded a Louisiana volunteer unit during the Second Seminole War. See Brown, Canter Jr., “Persifor F. Smith, the Louisiana Volunteers, and Florida's Second Seminole War,” Louisiana History 34 (1993): 389–410 Google Scholar.

81. See Skelton, American Profession of Arms, 344–45, 359; Watson, “Uncertain Road,” 101; White, It's Your Misfortune, 79; Winders, Polk's Army, 31, 65.

82. See Porter, War and Rise of the State, 256–57, 292, table 7–2.

83. See Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of Finances (Washington, DC: Department of Treasury, 1851), 215; Historical Statistics, table Ea636–43; Rockwell, Administrative State, 217–18; White, It's Your Misfortune, 58–59, 127–28.

84. See Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of Finances (Washington, DC: Department of Treasury, 1848), 314. Congressman John Vining (F-DE) first proposed a “home” department in 1789. See Utley, Robert M. and Mackintosh, Barry, The Department of Everything Else: Highlights of Interior History (Washington, DC: Department of Interior, 1988), 1Google Scholar.

85. See Congressional Globe, 29th Cong., 1st Sess., 1846, 809–12, 864–67, 1101–03, app.; 29th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1846, 47–52, app.; Morrison, Michael A., Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 69–83 Google Scholar; Silbey, Joel H., Storm Over Texas: The Annexation Controversy and the Road to Civil War (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005), 122–31Google Scholar; Richards, Slave Power, 148–54; Schroeder, Polk's War, chaps. 2, 4–5, 8.

86. See Campbell, Randolph B., An Empire for Slavery: The Peculiar Institution in Texas, 1821–1865 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989)Google Scholar, chaps. 1–2; Morrison, American West, chap. 1; Silbey, Storm Over Texas, chaps. 2–4; Torget, Andrew J., Seeds of Empire: Cotton, Slavery, and the Transformation of the Texas Borderlands, 1800–1850 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015), 174–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 244–49.

87. See Campbell, Empire for Slavery, 109; Torget, Seeds of Empire, 234–35.

88. See Dormon, James H., “The Persistent Specter: Slave Rebellion in Territorial Louisiana,” Louisiana History 18 (1977): 394–98Google Scholar; Rodriquez, Junius, “Rebellion on the River Road: The Influence of Louisiana's German Coast Slave Insurrection of 1811,” in Antislavery Violence: Sectional, Racial, and Cultural Conflict in Antebellum America, ed. McKivigan, John R. and Harrold, Stanley (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1999), 72–76 Google Scholar; Young, “Army in the South,” 469–74. The revolt cost at least two European American and 87 African American lives, including 21 through state executions. See Dormon, “Persistent Specter,” 397–98.

89. See Rothman, Slave Country, 116; Young, Tommy II, “The United States Army and the Institution of Slavery in Louisiana, 1803–1835,” Louisiana Studies 13 (1974): 201–22Google Scholar.

90. See Allmendinger, David F. Jr., Nat Turner and the Rising in Southampton County (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 2014)Google Scholar; Parramore, Thomas C., “Covenant in Jerusalem,” in Nat Turner: A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory, ed. Greenberg, Kenneth S. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 58–76 Google Scholar; Young, “Army in the South,” 507–13. The revolt cost 55 European American lives. The state of Virginia executed 18 African Americans for allegedly participating in the rebellion; local militia and vigilante groups killed as many as 100 others. See Allmendinger, Nat Turner, 189, 200–07, 286–88, app. E and 289–97, app. F.

91. See Young, “Army in the South,” 501. Eaton was the territorial governor of Florida at the outset of the Second Seminole War.

92. See Egerton, He Shall Go Out Free, 171–72, 200, 229–32, app. I; Starobin, “Vesey's Conspiracy,” 148–49; Wilson, Clyde N., Cook, Shirley B., and Moore, Alexander, ed., The Papers of John C. Calhoun (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1959–2001), 7: 210Google Scholar (Bennett to Calhoun, July 15, 1822); 7: 220 (Calhoun to Bennett, July 22, 1822); 7: 227 (Bennett to Calhoun, July 30, 1822). In a two-part forum, Michael Johnson presented and a panel of historians debated his controversial thesis that a Vesey conspiracy never actually existed. See Gross, Robert, ed., “Forum: The Making of a Slave Conspiracy, Part 2,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 59 (2002): 135–202 Google Scholar; Johnson, Michael P., “Denmark Vesey and His Co-Conspirators”, William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 58 (2001): 915–76Google Scholar.

93. See Coakley, Domestic Disturbances, 190–93; McGlone, Robert E., John Brown's War against Slavery (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 296–300 Google Scholar; Rossbach, Jeffery, Ambivalent Conspirators: John Brown, the Secret Six, and a Theory of Slave Violence (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), 212–16Google Scholar.

94. The two relevant clauses are Article I, section 8, which refers to a congressional power to suppress insurrections, and Article IV, section 4, which refers to a federal guarantee of assistance to state governments in cases of domestic violence. Both clauses evolved out of the republican guarantee clause. See Farrand, Records, II: 47–49.

95. See Farrand, Records, 2: 222.

96. Quoted in Young, “Army in the South,” 521. Gaines was himself from Virginia.

97. See Coakley, Domestic Disturbances, 132–33; Streeter, Floyd Benjamin, Political Parties in Michigan, 1837–1860: An Historical Study of Political Issues and Parties in Michigan from the Admission of the State to the Civil War (Lansing: Michigan Historical Commission, 1918), 130–31Google Scholar.

98. See Collison, Shadrach Minkins, 124–33. Deputy Marshal Patrick Riley had confined Minkins in the courthouse because the state of Massachusetts had closed its jails to fugitive-slave renditions. See Collison, Shadrach Minkins, 121.

99. See Collison, Shadrach Minkins, 139–41. Secretary of State Webster had urged Fillmore to grant this authority to prevent another embarrassing slave rescue in his adopted state.

100. See Coakley, Domestic Disturbances, 133. The slaves escaped to Canada. See Slaughter, Thomas P., Bloody Dawn: The Christiana Riot and Racial Violence in the Antebellum North (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 77–79 Google Scholar.

101. Congress refused to compensate Batchelder's widow for his death. See House Journal, 33rd Cong., 1st Sess., May 29, 1854, 947–48; Senate Journal, 33rd Cong., 1st Sess., July 31, 1854, 605. A federal grand jury indicted eight men, including Theodore Parker and Wendell Phillips, for their role in the rescue attempt but a series of adverse court rulings and acts of popular resistance ultimately persuaded U.S. District Attorney Benjamin Franklin Hallett to drop the charges. See Maginnes, David R., “The Case of the Court House Rioters in the Rendition of the Fugitive Slave Anthony Burns, 1854,” Journal of Negro History 56 (January 1971): 31–42 Google Scholar; Maltz, Earl M., Fugitive Slave on Trial: The Anthony Burns Case and Abolitionist Outrage (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2010), 100–06Google Scholar.

102. See Coakley, Domestic Disturbances, 134–37; Maltz, Fugitive Slave on Trial, 92. Pierce's Attorney General, Caleb Cushing, had issued a formal opinion authorizing the deployment of local army units for this purpose following the rescue attempt. Fortunately, Burns' minister, Leonard Grimes, raised sufficient funds to purchase his freedom the next year. See Coakley, Domestic Disturbances, 134; Maltz, Fugitive Slave on Trial, 95–99.

103. See Campbell, Slave Catchers, 199–207 (tables 1–12). See also Baker, Robert H., The Rescue of Joshua Glover: A Fugitive Slave, the Constitution, and the Coming of the Civil War (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2006), 3–4 Google Scholar; Fehrenbacher, Slaveholding Republic, 246–47; Hummel, Jeffrey Rogers and Weingast, Barry R., “The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850: An Instrumental Interpretation,” in Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress, vol. 2, Further New Perspectives on the History of Congress, ed. Brady, David W. and McCubbins, Matthew D. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007), 388, 390–91, 394Google Scholar.

104. See Farrand, Records, 2: 454.

105. See Coakley, Domestic Disturbances, chaps. 2–10.

106. See Campbell, Slave Catchers, 130, n. 61.

107. See Ableman v. Booth 62 U.S. 506 (1859); Baker, Rescue of Joshua Glover, 154–55; Fehrenbacher, Slaveholding Republic, 239–40; Morris, Thomas D., Free Men All: The Personal Liberty Laws of the North, 1780–1861 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), 178–80Google Scholar. But cf. Orren, Karen, “‘A War between Officers': The Enforcement of Slavery in the Northern United States, and of the Republic for Which It Stands, before the Civil War,” Studies in American Political Development 12 (1998): 360–62Google Scholar.

108. See Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st Sess., 1850, 1604.

109. See Baker, Nancy V., Law and Politics in the Attorney General's Office, 1789–1990 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1992), 56–58 Google Scholar; Calhoun, Frederick S., The Lawmen: United States Marshals and Their Deputies, 1789–1989 (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1990), 55Google Scholar; H.R. Doc. No. 510, 70th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1929, 21; Huston, Luther A., The Department of Justice (New York: Praeger, 1967), 9–10 Google Scholar.

110. See Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1866, 475.

111. See Mullis, Tony R., Peacekeeping on the Plains: Army Operations in Bleeding Kansas (Columbia: University of Missouri Press), 221–23Google Scholar; Phillips, Christopher, “‘The Crime against Missouri’: Slavery, Kansas, and the Cant of Southernness in the Border West,” Civil War History 48 (2002): 60–81 Google Scholar; Wooster, Military Frontiers, 143–44. The violence in Kansas did not end completely. John Brown, for example, simply moved his antislavery vigilantism out of the army's reach to southeastern Kansas, before moving on to New York and Harpers Ferry. See Coakley, Domestic Disturbances, 185–87.

112. See Coakley, Domestic Disturbances, 179; H. Ex. Doc. No. 34, 34th Cong., 3rd Sess., 1857, 2; Wooster, Military Frontiers, 145.

113. See Coakley, Domestic Disturbances, 170, 187; Mullis, Peacekeeping on the Plains, 231 (quoting Geary), 243–44.

114. The clause originated, again, with Madison. See Farrand, Records, 2: 324.

115. See Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1857); Fehrenbacher, Don E., The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978)Google Scholar, chaps. 15–16; Maltz, Earl M., Dred Scott and the Politics of Slavery (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007)Google Scholar, chap. 8.

116. See Giddings, Joshua R., The Exiles of Florida: The Crimes Committed by Our Government against the Maroons Who Fled from South Carolina and Other Slave States (1858; repr. Baltimore: Swallow, 1997), 314–15Google Scholar.

117. The U.S. Navy also entered the Civil War a stronger organization through its efforts to enforce the slave-import ban. See Ericson, Slavery in the American Republic, chap. 2.

118. Paced by Jesup's 42 years as Quartermaster General (1818–60), army division heads enjoyed extraordinarily long tenures prior to the Civil War, enabling them to gain a significant degree of professional autonomy. See Adler, “State Capacity and Bureaucratic Autonomy,” 111, 112, table 1.

119. See McCaffrey, Army of Manifest Destiny, 16; Mahon, Second Seminole War, 326–27; Watson, “Uncertain Road,” 72; Winders, Polk's Army, 68–69. On the general trend away from military filibustering, see May, Robert E., “Manifest Destiny's Filibusters,” in Manifest Destiny and Empire: American Antebellum Expansionism, ed. Haynes, Sam W. and Morris, Christopher (College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1997), 146–79Google Scholar; May, Robert E., “Young American Males and Filibustering in the Age of Manifest Destiny: The United States Army as a Cultural Mirror,” Journal of American History 78 (1991): 857–86Google Scholar; Skelton, American Profession of Arms, 333–38; Watson, “Uncertain Road,” 69–73, 100–02.

120. See Lancaster, “Sherman's Introduction,” 65–66; McCaffrey, Army of Manifest Destiny, 203; Mahon, Second Seminole War, 321–22.