Response to Karen Orren

Journal of Policy History

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 479-490

  Smith, Rogers M ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80155167284     PISSN: 08980306     EISSN: 15284190     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0898030600005431     Document Type: Letter

References (19)

1. Orren's own most extended discussions of feudalism do not identify it with any of these elements, and she recognizes that exponents and analysts of feudalism have regularly contrasted the master-servant relations she stresses with master-slave relations. Orren, Belated Feudalism: Labor, the Law, and Liberal Development in the United States (New York, 1991), 10–14, 25, 26n47, 74, 78, 165.
2. Orren, Belated Feudalism, 14.
3. Rogers M. Smith, ‘“One United People’: Second-Class Female Citizenship and the American Quest for Community,” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 1 (1989): 229–293.
4. In answer to Orren's rhetorical questions in this section, just as I think “republican motherhood” did more to justify gender inequalities in America than doctrines of “limited government,” (which did play a part but are not in any case unique to liberalism), I also think nativism and racial Darwinism did have much more to do with justifying racist immigration restrictions and internal racial subordinations at various junctures in U.S. history, especially the late nineteenth century and the 1920s, than did doctrines of “limited government.” And as libertarians stress, racial Darwinism was used to justify restraints on free markets like the Jim Crow laws, not their maintenance. See Smith, “‘One United People’,” 243–248.
5. R. Herrnstein and C. Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York, 1994)
6. P. Brimelow, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster (New York, 1995)
7. D. D'Souza, The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society (New York, 1995).
8. Congressional Globe, 30 January 1866, 498–99; 4 July 1869, rep. 4 July 1870, 5150
9. Daniel J. Tichenor, “The Liberal and Illiberal Traditions in America: The Case of Immigration Policymaking.” Paper presented at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, (31 August 1995), 34.
10. Congressional Globe, 4 July 1870, 1549–1555, 1571
11. Cong. Record, vol. 13 pt. 2, 47th Cong., 1st Sess., 1515–16, 1521–22 (1882)
12. E. P. Hutchinson, Legislative History of American Immigration Policy, 1798–1965 (Philadelphia, 1981), 75–77
13. R. Daniels, Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life (New York, 1991) 56–57
14. R. Takaki, A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America (Boston, 1993)
15. Tichenor, “The Liberal and Illiberal Traditions in America,” 5–6.
16. A. Lawrence Lowell, “The Colonial Expansion of the United States,” Atlantic Monthly 83(1899): 151–153.
17. 118 U.S. 356 (1886). (Princeton, NJ, 1995).
18. This is well depicted by Richard Valelly, in “National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement,” in Classifying by Race, P. E. Peterson, ed.
19. Charles A. Lofgren, The Plessy Case: A Legal-Historical Interpretation (New York, 1987), 94, 99, 115, 175.