William Appleman Williams’s Empire As A Way of Life is a far from perfect book, but one of the striking things is the surprisingly open way America’s founders spoke of the US as an empire. “No constitution was ever before as well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government.” Not what you expect from Jefferson.
Madison claimed that extensive territory was not a threat to Constitutional freedoms but the guarantee of them. Extending US territory was of a piece with cultivating competing interests and preventing any single interest from dominating the whole: “This form of government, in order to effect its purpose, must operate not within a small but an extensive sphere . . . .
“Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probably that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all to feel it . . . to act in unison with each other.” The logic is the same as the logic of the First Amendment.
Jefferson agreed: “the larger our association the less it will be shaken by local passions.” And in his 1801 inaugural address, he said that America’s success “furnishes a new proof of the falsehood of Montesquieu’s doctrine, that a republic can be preserved only in a small territory. The reverse is the truth.”
George Washington said in 1783 that the US was a “rising empire,” and William Henry Drayton of South Carolina celebrated “a new Empire, stiled the United States of America . . . . That bids fair, by the blessing of God, to be the most glorious of any upon Record.”
Walt Whitman’s “I chant the new empire” was not a new or an unusual sentiment.
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from History
Continue reading related articles

Realness of Things Past
Greg Anderson began thinking about the thesis of his Realness of Things Past while working on a book on the “state” in classical Greece. He discovered there was no such thing as an Athenian “state,” and that conclusion led him to question the way historians do history. Instead of running…

The Power of the Margins
David Martin (1929-2019) was a secularization skeptic. He acknowledged that modern societies typically undergo a process of "differentiation," in which various sectors of social and political life free themselves from the oversight of religious authority. He acknowledged that in many modern societies religious institutions and values are "marginalized." But he…

Zwinglian Symbolism
Nathan Mitchell (writing in the Oxford History of Christian Worship , 324) denies that Zwingli taught a "mere symbolist" according to which the Supper "simply served to remind believers of the great benefits bestowed on them through Christ's passion and death." Zwingli wasn't a symbolist "in any modern sense." Mitchell…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.