Revolutionary Negotiations
Indians, Empires, and Diplomats in the Founding of America
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7308027 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Robert W Smith (0000-0003-0438-3531, Worcester State University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2011 |
| Volume | 97 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 1113-1114 |
| Publication date | 2011-03-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of American History (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0021-8723 • E-ISSN: 1945-2314 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1093/jahist/jaq076 |
| OpenAlex | W2318335404 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
Leonard J. Sadosky bills Revolutionary Negotiations as a book “about how the United States of America came to be” (p. 1). More precisely, it portrays how the United States negotiated itself into existence. Three systems shaped the colonial and Atlantic worlds: the Westphalian system of European nation-states, the borderlands system of diplomacy with the Indian tribes (a prelude to the Westphalian system), and the Philadelphian system of American states. Sadosky fuses two approaches that add new vitality to the study of early American diplomacy: first, he situates Indian diplomacy within the mainstream of diplomatic history; second, he argues that the purpose of state building was to conduct diplomacy. The key issue in negotiation was sovereignty. The British might create sovereignty where it did not exist, as with the Creeks in 1730 or the 1744 Treaty of Lancaster, which created an Iroquois ownership of the Ohio Valley to transfer the Ohio Valley to the Virginia Colony. The British also acted to limit sovereignty by bringing the United States back into the empire under the Carlisle Commission. Sadosky portrays American independence as a refinement of, rather than a change in, the Westphalian system. Although the Declaration of Independence was “a turning point in the process of the American colonies moving from their status as British provinces to becoming fully sovereign participants in the Westphalian system, it was also one episode in a larger continuum” (pp. 61–62). Sadosky also argues for the diplomatic conservatism of the United States: the new nation sought acceptance within the existing Westphalian system rather than change to it
Colonialism · Declaration of independence · Diplomacy · Economic history · Empire · Independence (probability theory · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Sovereign state · Sovereignty · State (computer science · Treaty · Westphalian sovereignty · American Constitutional Law and Politics · History · Law
| Citations per year | 0.36 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2015 - 2022 (8) |
| Highly cited | No |