- Essay on Sources
- Chapter
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- pp. 343-357
-
- View Citation
- Additional Information
ESSAY ON SOURCES
Introduction
On the history of social investigations in Britain, see Retrieved Riches: Social Investigation in Britain, 1840–1914, ed. David Englander and Rosemary O’Day (London, 1995). A useful survey of antebellum reform is Ronald G. Walters, American Reformers, 1815–1860 (New York, 1978). Also see Steven Mintz, Moralists and Modernizers: America’s Pre–Civil War Reformers (Baltimore, 1995). On utilitarianism, political economy, and scientific legislation, see Eric Stokes, The English Utilitarians and India (Oxford, 1959); L. J. Hume, Bentham and Bureaucracy (Cambridge, 1981); and Donald Winch, “The Science of the Legislature: The Enlightenment Heritage,” in The State and Social Investigation, ed. Michael J. Lacey and Mary O. Furner (Washington, D.C., 1993), 63–94. The State and Social Investigation is a fine anthology that focuses on a later period and supports a rather monolithic view of the state which all but ignores the role of legislatures in generating social knowledge. On the history of sociology, see Bruce Mazlish, A New Science: The Breakdown of Connections and the Birth of Sociology (New York, 1989); Randal Collins and Michael Makowsky, The Discovery of Society (New York, 1972); The Social in Question: New Bearings in History and the Social Sciences, ed. Patrick Joyce (London, 2002), Part 1; Robert C. Davis, “Social Research in America Before the Civil War,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 8 (1972): 69–85; and Selwyn K. Troen, “The Diffusion of an Urban Social Science: France, England, and the United States in the Nineteenth Century,” Comparative Social Research 9 (1986): 247–66. On knowledge and social control, see Stanley Cohen and Andrew Scull, Social Control and the State (Oxford, 1983); Social Control in Nineteenth Century Britain, ed. A. P. Donajgrodski (Totowa, N.J., 1977); and David J. Rothman, The Discovery of the Asylum; Social Order and Disorder in the New Republic (Boston, 1971).
On the feud over the comparative benefits of the two systems of incarceration in antebellum America, see Negley K. Teeter and John D. Shearer, The Prison at Philadelphia, Cherry Hill: The Separate System of Penal Discipline, 1829–1913 (New York, 1957). For individual states’ engagement in social research see, for example, Pennsylvania Senate, Report of the Select Committee Appointed to Visit the Manufacturing Districts of the Commonwealth for the Purpose of Investigating the Employment of Children in Manufactories (Harrisburg, 1838); Report of Select Committee Appointed to Examine into the Condition of Tenant Houses in New York and Brooklyn, New York Assembly Document 205 (March 9, 1857); and Report of the Commissioners of Alien Passengers and Foreign Paupers, Massachusetts House Document 18 (Boston, 1853). On Dorothea Dix’s campaign for asylum reform, see Dix, On Behalf of the Insane Poor, Selected Reports (1843–52; New York, 1971). In the wake of the Civil War, many states established institutions for social research; see William R. Brock, Investigation and Responsibility: Public Responsibility in the United States, 1865–1900 (Cambridge, 1984). A good survey of antebellum politics is Joel Silbey, The Partisan Imperative: The Dynamics of American Politics Before the Civil War (New York, 1985). On the Reform Act as a watershed in British politics, see J. A. Phillips and C. Wetherell, “The Great Reform Act of 1832 and the Political Modernization of England,” American Historical Review 100 (Apr. 1995): 411–36, and “The Great Reform Bill of 1832 and the Rise of Partisanship,” Journal of Modern History 63 (Dec. 1991): 621–46. Frederick Law Olmsted’s project was titled A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States, with Remarks on Their Economy (New York, 1856). On the visits by agents of statistical societies to the domiciles of the poor, see M. J. Cullen, The Statistical Movement in Early Victorian Britain (New York, 1975), 135–37. On the contribution of religious revivals (rather than the marketplace) to the making of modern American print culture and mass media, see David Paul Nord, Faith in Reading: Religious Publishing and the Birth of Mass Media in America (New York, 2004).
Along with Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, The Concept of Representation (Berkeley, 1967), I found helpful Brian Seitz, The Trace of Political Representation (Albany, 1995). An important analysis of the emergence of the American public sphere and its relationship with print culture is Michael Warner, The Letters of the Republic: Publication and the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century America (Cambridge, Mass., 1990). On citizenship and the public sphere, see Michael Schudson, The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life (New York, 1998); Mary Ryan, Civic Wars, Democracy and Public Life in the American City during the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley, 1997); and James Vernon, Politics and the People: A Study in English Political Culture, 1815–1867 (Cambridge, 1993). On print culture in historical perspectives, see Roger Chartier, The Order of Books: Readers, Authors, and Libraries in Europe between the Fourteenth and Eighteenth Centuries, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Stanford, 1992); Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, The Printing Revolution as an Agent of Change (Cambridge, 1980); Ronald J. Zboray, A Fictive People: Antebellum Economic Development and the American Reading Pubic (New York, 1993); and Adrian Johns, The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making (Chicago, 2000).
The concept of the archive has been widely used in postcolonial literature to designate, in a rather loose manner, bodies of knowledge, scholarly disciplines, and other types of discourse, administrative records, official publications, and brick-and-mortar-archives. See, for example, Thomas Richard, The Imperial Archive: Knowledge and the Fantasy of Empire (London, 1993); Ann Laura Stoler, “Colonial Archives and the Art of Governance,” Archival Science 2, nos. 1–2 (2002): 87–109; and Tony Ballantyne, Orientalism and Race: Aryanism in the British Empire (New York, 2002). Also see Jacques Derrida, Archive Fever, trans. Eric Prenowitz (Chicago, 1996); Michel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge (1972; New York, 1982), part 3, and Carolyn Steedman, Dust: The Archive and Cultural History (New Brunswick, N.J., 2002). On the gap between the panoptic desire (and the attempt to create a total archive) and the reality of knowledge production and circulation, see Ballantyne, Orientalism and Race, 9. Ann Stoler remarked recently that colonial regimes were “imperfect, and even indifferent knowledge-acquiring machines. Omniscience and omnipotence were not, as is so often assumed, their defining goals” (“Tense and Tender Ties: The Politics of Comparison in North American History and (Post) Colonial Studies,” Journal of American History 88 (Dec. 2001): 829– 66). Since the early 1980s, “new historicist” literary scholars have offered fresh ways of contextualizing literary texts historically; see Catherine Gallagher and Stephen Greenblatt, Practicing New Historicism (Chicago, 2001); Gallagher, The Industrial Reformation of English Fiction: Social Discourse and Narrative Form, 1832–1867 (Chicago, 1985); and The New Historicism, ed. H. Aram Veeser (New York, 1989). On the social sciences and the question of objectivity, see Mary O. Furner, Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of American Social Science. 1865–1905 (Lexington, Ky., 1975); Linda Gordon, “Social Insurance and Public Assistance: The Influence of Gender in Welfare Thought in the United States, 1890–1935,” American Historical Review 97 (Feb. 1992): 41–43.
PART I • Monuments in Print
The famous report on child labor in the mines was published as First Report of the Royal Commission on Children’s Employment (Mines) 1842 (380) 15, and in private editions, for instance, by William Clowes and Son. John Charles Frémont’s first report was issued in 1843 as A Report of an Exploration of the Country Lying between the Missouri River and the Rocky Mountains on the Line of the Kansas and Great Platte River, Senate Document 243, 27th Cong., 3d sess., serial 416. It was later coupled with the report of his 1843–44 expedition and published in separate editions by the printers of the House and the Senate; see Report of the Exploring Expedition to the Rocky Mountains in the Year 1842, and to Oregon and North California in the Years 1843–44 (Washington, D.C., 1845).
The prominence given to minute details in natural history, on the one hand, and in social reportage, on the other, has received diverse scholarly attention. Susan Cannon views the bumblebee episode in Frémont’s account and similar detailed descriptions as a demonstration of the influence of “Humboldtian Science” (instead of a Baconian aggregation of facts) on antebellum American science. Thomas Laqueur argues that detailed descriptions of human bodies are constitutive of the post-Enlightenment humanitarian sensibility. See Susan Faye Cannon, Science in Culture: The Early Victorian Period (New York, 1978), especially chapter 3, and Thomas W. Laqueur, “Bodies, Details, and the Humanitarian Narrative,” in The New Cultural History, ed. Lynn Hunt (Berkeley, 1989), 176–204. On the motif of the sublime in mid-nineteenth-century American paintings and geology, see Barbara Novak, Nature and Culture: American Landscape and Painting, 1825–1875 (New York, 1980), 18–77.
On the imaginary work that sustains national communities, see Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism (1983; London, 1991). Geoffrey Nunberg’s views on the historicity and materiality of information is influenced by the writing of Walter Benjamin, especially “The Storyteller,” and “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” in Illuminations, ed. H. Arendt (New York, 1969). On issues of copyright in state publications in historical perspectives, see William F. Party, Copyright Law and Practice, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C., 1994), 338–58; Neil Davenport, United Kingdom Copyright and Design Protection: A Brief History (Emsworth, Hampshire, 1993), 157–64.
On the production and diffusion of books as a “circuit of communication,” see Robert Darnton, “What is the History of Books?” in Kiss of Lamourette: Reflections in Cultural History (New York, 1990), 107–35. Also see D. F. McKenzie, Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts (Cambridge, 1999). On authorship, see, for instance, Michel Foucault, “What is an Author?” in The Foucault Reader, ed. Paul Rabinow (New York, 1984), 101–20; Carla Hesse, “Enlightenment Epistemology and Laws of Authorship in Revolutionary France, 1777–1793,” Representations 30 (Spring 1990): 109–37; John Brewer, “Authors, Publishers and the Making of Literary Culture,” in The Pleasures of the Imagination: English Culture in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1997), 125–66; and Mark Rose, “Literary Property Determined,” in Books and Owners: The Invention of Copyright (Cambridge, Mass., 1993), 92–112. A good example of literary criticism that incorporates the physical aspects of books is Reading Books: Essays on the Material Text and Literature in America, ed. Michele Moylan and Lane Stiles (Amherst, 1996), and Robert Patten, “When is a Book Not a Book,” Biblion: The Bulletin of the New York Public Library (Spring 1996): 35–63. On reading, see Michel de Certeau, “Reading as Poaching,” in The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendall (Berkeley, 1984), 165–76; Jonathan Rose, The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes (New Haven, 2001); Richard Altick, The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800–1900 (1957; Columbus, Ohio, 1998); William J. Gilmore, Reading Becomes a Necessity of Life: Material and Cultural Life in Rural New England, 1780–1835 (Knoxville, Tenn., 1989); and Roger Chartier, “Text, Printing, Readings,” in The New Cultural History, ed. Hunt, 154–175. On the “information age” in historical perspectives, see, for instance, A Nation Transformed by Information: How Information Has Shaped the United States from Colonial Times to the Present, ed. Alfred D. Chandler and James W. Cortada (New York, 2000). On the documentary style, see William Stott’s classic Documentary Expression and Thirties America (New York, 1973), and Paula Rabinowitz, They Must be Represented: The Politics of Documentary (New York, 1994). On the literariness of official state documents, see Robert A. Ferguson, “The Literature of Public Documents,” in The Cambridge History of American Literature, vol. 1, 1590–1820, ed. Sacvan Bercovitch (New York, 1994), 470–95. For orality and print in the colonial period, see Sandra M. Gustafson, Eloquence is Power: Oratory and Performance in Early America (Chapel Hill, 2000).
Chapter One • Blue Books and the Market of Information
A. V. Dicey’s late-nineteenth-century confidence in the might of “public opinion” was challenged in the 1960s by Oliver Macdonagh, who demonstrated that important reforms (namely the Passenger Acts) rested on bureaucratic initiatives without any previous public campaign. Macdonagh’s conception was known as the “Tory thesis” of government growth. The entire Tory/Whig debate over public opinion was displaced in the historical literature by the ascendance of the Gramscian notion of “hegemony” and by the growing emphasis on pervasive public culture or an omnipotent “discourse.” Both approaches reject a mechanistic view of power, opinion, and political action. In addition, the “Benthamite” category itself has lost much of its explanatory appeal. There were strong divisions among Bentham’s followers as to the role of government in allocating documents and diffusing information. Moreover, some of the utilitarians’ publication strategies were employed by other factions as well. See A. V. Dicey, Lectures on the Relation Between Law and Public Opinion in England (London, 1905), and Oliver Macdonagh, A Pattern of Government Growth, 1800–1860: The Passenger Acts and Their Enforcement (London, 1961). On Chadwick’s circle’s publicizing techniques, see S. E. Finer, “The Transmission of Benthamite Ideas 1820–50,” in Studies in the Growth of Nineteenth-Century Government, ed. Gillian Sutherland (London, 1972), 27. On the New Poor Law, see Anthony Brundage, The Making of the New Poor Law: The Politics of Inquiry, Enactment, and Implementation, 1832–1839 (New Brunswick, N.J., 1978), and Peter Mandler, “The Making of the New Poor Law Redivivus,” Past and Present 117 (Nov. 1987): 131–57. On working-class publications against the New Poor Law, see R. K. Webb, The British Working Class Reader, 1790–1848 (London, 1955), 123–36. Harriet Martineau’s book was titled Poor Laws and Paupers Illustrated: The Parish; The Hamlet; The Town; The Land’s End (London, 1833). On the centralization of information at the hands of the British government, see David Eastwood’s excellent “‘Amplifying the Province of the Legislature’: The Flow of Information and the English State in the Early Nineteenth Century,” Historical Research 62 (Oct. 1989): 276–94.
The best archival record for an early Victorian royal commission of inquiry is that of the Constabulary Force Commission (1836–39). The commission issued a thin report in 1839 but never completed its work or published the lengthy document its commissioners had envisaged. Many of its records (questionnaires, letters, notes) are still in the Public Record Office (HO 73/2–9) and sections 5–4 of the Edwin Chadwick Papers, University College, London. On the history of public-record legislation, see Winston Churchill’s First Report of the Royal Commission on Public Record, 1912 (cd. 6361) 44, Appendix 1. See also Hilary Jenkinson, Guide to the Public Record (London, 1949), 7–10, 12–14; The British Public Record Office (Richmond, Va., 1960), 17–21; and Philippa Levine, “History in the Archives: The Public Record Office and Its Staff, 1838–1886,” English Historical Review 101 (1986): 20–41.
Library scholar Margaret Steig conducted pioneering work on the informational functions of the Victorian state in “The Nineteenth Century Information Revolution,” Journal of Library History 15 (Winter 1980): 22–52. On Stationery Office history, see David Bucher, Official Publications in Britain (London, 1991); Hugh Barty-King, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: The Story of the First 200 Years, 1786–1986 (Norwich, England, 1986); James G. Ollé, An Introduction to British Government Publications (London, 1965); and P. Ford and G. Ford, A Guide to Parliamentary Papers (Oxford, 1956). A good anthology on Habermasian scholarship is Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Craig Calhoun (Cambridge, Mass., 1992). Another valuable collection is The Phantom Public Sphere, ed. Bruce Robbins (Minneapolis, 1993). For an early critique of Habermas’s work, see Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge, Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere, trans. Peter Labanyi, Jamie Owen Daniel, and Assenka Oksiloff (Minneapolis, 1993). On the “plebian public sphere,” see Kevin Gilmartin, Print Politics: The Press and Radical Opposition in Early Nineteenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1996). Also see Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Thomas Burger (1962; Cambridge, Mass., 1991), and Robert C. Holub, Jürgen Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere (London, 1991).
Chapter Two • The Battle of the Books
On the New York State geological project, see Michele L. Aldrich, “New York Natural History Survey, 1836–1845” (Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Austin, 1974). For post–Civil War congressional investigation of the conditions in the South, see, for example, Memphis Riots and Massacre, House Report 101, 39th Cong., 1st sess., serial 1274; and Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, 13 vols., House Report 22, 42d Cong., 2d sess., serial 1529–41. On congressional investigative powers, see Allan Barth, Government by Investigation (New York, 1955); James Hamilton, The Power to Probe: A Study of Congressional Investigations (New York, 1976); and Congress Investigates: A Documentary History, 1792–1974, ed. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and Roger Burns, 5 vols. (New York, 1975). Carl Schurz’s report was titled Report of Carl Schurz on the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, in Message of the President of the United States, Senate Exec. Doc. 2, 39th Cong., 1st sess., serial 1237. Also see Hans L. Trefousse, Carl Schurz: A Biography (Knoxville, Tenn., 1982), 158–60. An important source on government printing and patronage is Culver H. Smith, The Press, Politics, and Patronage: The American Government’s Use of Newspapers, 1789–1875 (Athens, Ga., 1977). On press coverage of Washington politics, see Samuel Kernell and Gary C. Jacobson, “Congress and the Presidency as News in the Nineteenth Century,” The Journal of Politics 49 (Nov. 1987): 1016–37; and Thomas C. Leonard, The Power of the Press: The Birth of American Political Reporting (New York, 1986). On the circulation of information and the early version of the “informed citizen,” see Richard D. Brown, Knowledge is Power: The Diffusion of Information in Early America, 1700–1865 (New York, 1989), and The Strength of the People: The Idea of an Informed Citizenry in America, 1650–1870 (Chapel Hill, 1996). On antebellum newspapers, see Michael Schudson, Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers (New York, 1967); Dan Schiller, Objectivity and the News: The Public and the Rise of Commercial Journalism (Philadelphia, 1981); and David T. Z. Mindich, Just the Facts: How “Objectivity” Came to Define American Journalism (New York, 1998). For histories of the Government Printing Office, see James L. Harrison, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961 (Washington, D.C., 1961); Robert Washington Kerr, History of the Government Printing Office (Lancaster, Pa., 1881); and Laurence F. Schmeckebier, The Government Printing Office: Its History, Activities and Organization (Baltimore, 1925).
On circular letters and their relationship to other forms of information, including official publications, see Noble E. Cunningham’s introduction to Circular Letters of Congressmen to Their Constituents, ed. Cunningham, vol. 1 (Chapel Hill, 1978). On Gales and Seaton as congressional reporters, see Donald A. Ritchie, Press Gallery: Congress and the Washington Correspondents (Cambridge, Mass., 1991), 7–34. Jonathan Swift’s famous tale is “A Full and True Account of the Battel fought last Friday between the Antient and the Modern books in St. James’s Library” in Selected Prose and Poetry, ed. Edward Rosenheim Jr. (New York, 1959), 150–82.
Government publications have been of interest predominantly for bibliographers. Thus, for a pioneering overview of federal publications in the early republic, see J. H. Powell, The Books of a New Nation: United States Government Publications, 1774–1814 (Philadelphia, 1957). On government publications during the first half of the twentieth century, see Leroy Charles Merrit, The United States Government As Publisher (Chicago, 1943), and Paul Bixler, “Uncle Sam’s Best Sellers,” Saturday Review of Literature 18 (May 28, 1938): 3–4, 16. On the War of the Rebellion project, see Dallas D. Irvine, “The Genesis of the Official Records,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 24 (Sept. 1937): 221–29. On the nexus of culture and the state, see Mathew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy, ed. R. H. Super (Ann Arbor, 1965); Ian Hunter, Culture and Government: The Emergence of Literary Education (London, 1988); David Lloyd and Paul Thomas, Culture and the State (New York, 1998); and State/Culture: State Formation after the Cultural Turn, ed. George Steinmetz (Ithaca, 1999). On “Saxon eloquence,” see Kenneth Cmiel, Democratic Eloquence: The Fight over Popular Speech in Nineteenth Century America (Berkeley, 1991), 111–20. On reconciliation as the predominant theme of Civil War memory, see David W. Blight, Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory (Cambridge, Mass., 2002).
Chapter Three • The Bee in the Book
John Higham, From Boundlessness to Consolidation: The Transformation of American Culture, 1848–1860 (Ann Arbor, 1969). Allan Nevins claimed that too much was made of Jessie Benton’s contributions to Frémont’s reports (Frémont: Pathmaker of the West [1928; New York, 1955], 117–18). Frémont’s reports were reprinted, for example, by D. Appleton and Co. in New York City (1846 and 1856, when Frémont was the Republican party’s candidate for presidency), G. H. Derby and Co. in Buffalo (1849 and 1850), by Hall and Dickson in Syracuse in conjunction with Hall and Dickson in New York (1847), and by H. Polkinhorn in Washington (1845). On John C. Frémont’s explorations, see Tom Chaffn, Pathfinder: John Charles Frémont and the Course of American Empire (New York, 2002), 95–366. See also William Goetzmann, Explorations and Empire: The Explorer and the Scientist in the Winning of the American West (1966; New York, 1993), 240–52. On the exploring expedition, see Nathaniel Philbrick, Sea of Glory: America’s Voyage of Discovery: The U.S. Exploring Expedition, 1838–1842 (New York, 2003); William Stanton, The Great United States Exploring Expedition of 1838–1842 (Berkeley, 1975); and Magnificent Voyagers, ed. Herman J. Viola and Carolyn Margolis (Washington, D.C., 1985). Anita Hibler’s research on the publication of the exploring expedition reports is particularly detailed and useful. Anita M. Hibler, “The Publication of the Wilkes Reports, 1842–1877” (Ph.D. diss., George Washington University, 1989). For a bibliographical history of each volume, see Daniel C. Haskell, U.S. Exploring Expedition, 1838–1842, and Its Publications, 1844–1874 (New York, 1940). Charles Wilkes’s narrative account was issued as Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition, During the Years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, 5 vols. (Philadelphia, 1844).
On the border dispute with Mexico, see William Goetzmann, Army Exploration in the American West, 1803–1863 (New Haven, 1959), 175–78; L. David Norris, James C. Milligan, and Odie B. Faulk, William H. Emory: Soldier-Scientist (Tucson, 1998), chap. 3; and Odie B. Faulk, Introduction to the reprint of John Russell Bartlett’s Personal Narrative of Explorations (1854; Chicago, 1965). David Dale Owen’s geological report was issued as Report of a Geological Reconnaissance, of the Chippewa Land District of Wisconsin, and the Northern Part of Iowa, Senate Exec. Doc. 57, 30th Cong., 1st sess., serial 509. On mid-nineteenth-century science, see Robert V. Bruce, The Launching of Modern American Science, 1846–1876 (New York, 1987), 201–68; Howard S. Miller, Dollars for Research: Science and Its Patrons in Nineteenth Century America (Seattle, 1970); and Lillian B. Miller, The Lazzaroni: Science and Scientists in Mid-Nineteenth Century America (Washington, D.C., 1972). On the dispute over the route to the pacific, see Robert Royal Russel, Improvement of Communication with the Pacific Coast as an Issue in American Politics, 1783–1864 (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1948), 168–201. For bibliographical details of antebellum western reporting, see Henry R. Wagner and Charles L. Camp, The Plains and the Rockies: A Critical Bibliography of Exploration, Adventure and Travel in the American West, 1800–1865, ed. Robert H. Becker (San Francisco, 1982).
On dedicating books in early modern Europe, see Natalie Z. Davis, “Beyond the Market: Books as Gifts in Sixteenth Century France,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, ser. 5, 33 (1983): 69–88. On authorship in antebellum America, see William Charvat, The Profession of Authorship in America, 1800–1870, ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli (1968; New York, 1992), and Meredith L. McGill, American Literature and the Culture of Reprinting, 1834–1853 (Philadelphia, 2002). McGill provides an exceedingly valuable analysis of antebellum debates about intellectual rights (especially the international copyright law) in which market-driven and republican notions about authorship and publishing clashed. Her discussion, together with recent work on the publication might of antebellum religious societies, and this book’s emphasis on the role of government in circulation of texts demonstrate, in different contexts, that the antebellum literary arena was not entirely governed by the modalities and ideologies of the liberal, profit-driven marketplace.
PART II • The Culture of the Social Fact
Chapter Four • Scenes of Commission
For useful details on royal commissions and their personnel, see Officials of Royal Commissions of Inquiry 1815–1870, ed. J. M. Collinge, in vol. 9 of Office Holders in Modern Britain (London, 1984). The only monograph on the topic is still H. M. Clokie and Joseph F. Robinson, Royal Commissions of Inquiry: The Significance of Investigations in British Politics (Stan-ford, 1937). Also see H. F. Gosnell, “British Royal Commissions of Inquiry,” Political Science Quarterly 49 (1934): 84–118. Two biographies of Chadwick stand out: S. E. Finer, The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London, 1952), and Anthony Brundage, England’s “Prussian Minister”: Edwin Chadwick and the Politics of Government Growth, 1832–1854 (University Park, Pa., 1988). On the debate over the expansion of Victorian government, see The Victorian Revolution-Government and society in Victoria’s Britain, ed. Peter Stansky (New York, 1973). On the early history of royal commissions, see T. J. Cartwright, Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees in Britain (London, 1975), 32–48. For details on the work of the Factory Commission, see T. J. Ward, The Factory Movement, 1830–1855 (London, 1962), 81–134. A good analysis of the politics of Whig governments is Peter Mandler, Aristocratic Government in the Age of Reform: Whigs and Liberals, 1830–1852 (Oxford, 1990). The Irish Poor Law Commission’s recommendation not to legislate a poor law for Ireland was rejected outright by the British cabinet; see Helen Burk, The People and the Poor Law in Nineteenth Century Ireland (Littlehampton, England, 1987), 17–46. The version of the Irish Poor Law Commission’s report employed in this chapter is the privately published The Miseries and Misfortunes of Ireland and the Irish People from the Evidence Taken by the Commissioners for Inquiring into the Condition of the Poorer Classes in Ireland (London, 1836). For the tension between scientific and local knowledge, see Hugh Raffles, “Intimate Knowledge,” International Social Science Journal 54, no. 3 (2002): 325–35. On nineteenth-century statistical imagination, see Mary Poovey, “Figures of Arithmetic, Figures of Speech—The Discourse of Statistics in the 1830s,” Critical Inquiry 19 (Winter 1993): 256–76; Mary Poovey, Making a Social Body: British Cultural Formation, 1830–1864 (Chicago, 1995); Theodore M. Porter, The Rise of Statistical Thinking, 1820–1900 (Princeton, 1986); and Ian Hacking, The Taming of Chance (Cambridge, 1990).
Michel Foucault explored the panopticon to great effect in Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York, 1979), 195–308. Also see Foucault, “The Eye of Power,” in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, ed. Colin Gordon (New York, 1980), 146–65. Foucault’s earlier work, especially his description of the “medical gaze” in the Birth of the Clinic, acknowledged more complicated movements and arrangements of the eye than in the Panopticon; see The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception, trans. Alan M. Sheridan (London, 1973), 107–23. Also see Martin Jay, Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought (Berkeley, 1993), 381–416 (esp. 411–416); John Rajchman, “Foucault’s Art of Seeing,” October 44 (Spring 1988): 89–119; and Thomas R. Flynn, “Foucault and the Eclipse of Vision,” in Modernity and the Hegemony of Vision, ed. David Michael Levin (Berkeley, 1993), 273–86. Nick Crossley contends that the Panopticon presupposes an intersubjective rather than objectifying gaze in “The Politics of the Gaze: Between Foucault and Merleau-Ponty,” Human Studies 16 (October 1993): 399–419. For other critical approaches to the role of royal commissions in British political life, see Adam Ashforth, “Reckoning Schemes of Legitimation: On Commissions of Inquiry as Power/Knowledge Form,” Journal of Historical Sociology 3 (Mar. 1990): 1–22; Frank Burton and Pat Carlen, Official Discourse: On Discourse Analysis, Government Publications, Ideology and the State (London, 1979); and P. Corrigan and D. Sayer, The Great Arch: English State Formation as Cultural Revolution (Oxford, 1985).
On the factory movement’s exposure of factory conditions, see The Poor Man’s Advocate; or, A Full and Fearless Exposure of the Horrors and Abominations of the Factory System in England, 50 vols. (Manchester, 1830), and R. G. Kirby and A. E. Musson, The Voice of the People: John Doherty, 1798–1854: Trade Unionist, Radical and Factory Reformer (Manchester, 1975). On the counterinvestigation conducted by the Glasgow operatives, see Sixth Report from the Select Committee on the Operation of the Factory Acts, HC 1840 (504) 10, pp. 27–28. For William Dodd’s work as a social investigator, see Dodd, The Factory System Illustrated: In a Series of Letters to the Right Hon. Lord Ashley Together with A Narrative of the Experience and Sufferings of William Dodd (1842; London, 1968). On tourism to factories, see R. Boyson, The Ashworth Cotton Enterprise. The Rise and Fall of a Family Firm, 1818–1880 (Oxford, 1970), 181–83. For an example of a delegation of laborers that traveled abroad to conduct a social investigation, see Report of the Coventry Independent Deputation of Workmen Appointed to Visit the Ribbon-weaving Districts of France and Switzerland (Coventry: Taunton’s Free Press Office [1860]). On Inspector Stuart’s career, see Ursula Henriques, “An Early Factory Inspector,” Scottish Historical Review 1 (1971): 18–46. For a critique of the power of law to affix social categories, see Wendy Brown, States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Modernity (Princeton, 1995).
Chapter Five • Facts Speak for Themselves
An important summary of Bakhtin’s theories is Tzvetan Todorov, Mikhail Bakhtin; The Dialogical Principle, trans. Wlad Godzich (Minneapolis, 1984). On the 1840s language of discovery, see Gertrude Himmelfarb, The Idea of Poverty: England in the Early Industrial Age (New York, 1983), 356–57. On the sexual voyeurism of post-Enlightenment reform literature, see Karen Halttunen, “Humanitarianism and the Pornography of Pain in Anglo-American Culture,” The American Historical Review 50 (Apr. 1995): 303–34. Victorian authors drew on parliamentary reports to build scenes and characters in their narratives. See, for example, Sheila M. Smith, “Wilenhall and Wodgate: Disraeli’s Use of Blue Books Evidence,” Review of English Studies 13 (Nov. 1962): 368–84.
For the antislavery appropriation of the parliamentary hearings, see the Society for the Abolition of Slavery, Analysis of the Report of a Committee of the House of Commons on the Extinction of Slavery (London: S. Bagster Printer, 1833); The Society for the Abolition of Slavery, Abstract of the Report of the Lords Committee on the Condition and Treatment of Colonial Slaves (London: S. Bagster Printer, 1833); “Legion,” A Letter from Legion to... the Duke of Richmond... on the Slavery Committee of the House of Lords: Containing an Exposure of the Character of the Evidence on the Colonial Side Produced Before the Committee (London: S. Bagster Printer, [1833]); and “Legion,” A Second Letter from Legion to... the Duke of Richmond... Containing an Analysis of the Anti-slavery Evidence Produced Before the Committee (London: S. Bagster, 1833). In all likelihood, the two pairs of documents were produced by the same organization.
On metonymy and representation of social reality, see Jonathan Arac, Commissioned Spirits: The Shaping of Social Motion in Dickens, Carlyle, Melville, and Hawthorne (New York, 1989), 34–47; Stephen J. Spector, “Monsters of Metonymy: Hard Times and Knowing the Working Class,” English Literary History 51 (Summer 1984): 365–84; Roman Jakobson, “Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances,” in Jakobson and Morris Halle, Fundamentals of Language (The Hague, 1956), 53–82. The notion of the implied reader was elaborated by Wolfgang Iser; see his The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore, 1978). In recent decades, the social sciences (anthropology in particular) have engaged in self-critique that centers on the dynamics and ethics of fieldwork (especially the relationship between researcher and informant) as well as the textuality of social scientific texts. The literature is enormous. Standing out is the compilation Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, ed. James Clifford and George E. Marcus (Berkeley, 1986), especially Clifford, “Introduction: Partial Truths,” 1–26, and Renato Rosaldo, “From the Door of His Tent: The Fieldworker and the Inquisitor,” 77–97.
Chapter Six • Can Freedmen Be Citizens?
The Emancipation League commenced collecting information about freedmen by sending questionnaires to superintendents and supervisors of freedmen’s affair. See Facts Concerning the Freedmen, Their Capacity and Their Destiny, Collected by and Published by the Emancipation League (Boston: Press of Commercial Printing House, 1863). On the history of the American Freedmen’s Inquiry Commission (AFIC), see John G. Sproat, “Blue Print for Radical Reconstruction,” Journal of Southern History 23 (Feb. 1957): 25–44; and James M. McPherson, The Struggle for Equality: Abolitionists and the Negro in the Civil War and Reconstruction (Princeton, 1964), 178–91. On the federal government and the freedmen, see Louis S. Gerteis, From Contraband to Freedman: Federal Policy Toward Southern Blacks, 1861– 1865 (Westport, Conn., 1973); Mary Frances Berry, Military Necessity and Civil Rights Policy: Black Citizenship and the Constitution, 1861–1868 (London, 1977); and Freedom: A Documentary History of Emancipation, 1861–1867, ed. Ira Berlin et al. ser. 1, vol. 1, The Destruction of Slavery (Cambridge, 1985), and vol. 2, The Wartime Genesis of Free Labor: The Upper South (Cambridge, 1993).
The AFIC’s official reports were published together as Senate Exec. Doc. 53, 38th Cong., 1st sess., serial 1176. Also see Official Records, ser. 3, 3:430–54; ser. 3, 4:289–82. The two supplementary reports were published privately. See Samuel Gridley Howe, The Refugees From Slavery in Canada West: Report to the Freedmen’s Inquiry Commission (Boston, 1864), and James McKaye, “The Mastership and Its Fruits: The Emancipated Slave Face to Face with His Old Master: A Supplemental Report” (New York: Loyal Publication Society, no. 58, 1864). Robert Dale Owen published a book based on the commission’s final report, The Wrong of Slavery, The Right of Emancipation, and the Future of the African Race in the United States (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Co., 1864). Abridged versions of the reports were published in the abolitionist and the general press. See, for example, National Anti-Slavery Standard, August 15, 1863.
On the Sanitary Commission, see William Quentin Maxwell, Lincoln’s Fifth Wheel: The Political History of the United States Sanitary Commission (New York, 1956). The Sanitary Commission also engaged in social research; see Benjamin Apthorp Gould, Investigations in the Military and Anthropological Statistics of American Soldiers (New York: US Sanitary Commission, 1869). For an account on a politically charged congressional investigation (the Thompson Committee) of the war effort, see Bruce Tap, Over Lincoln’s Shoulder: The Committee on the Conduct of the War (Lawrence, Kans., 1998). For biographical material on Robert Dale Owen, see Elinor Pancoast and Anne E. Lincoln, The Incorrigible Idealist: Robert Dale Owen in America (Bloomington, 1940), and Richard W. Leopold, Robert Dale Owen: A Biography (Cambridge, Mass., 1940). On Samuel Gridley Howe, see Harold Schwartz, Samuel Gridley Howe: Social Reformer, 1801–1876 (Cambridge, Mass., 1956). For Robert Dale Owen’s Civil War propaganda, see, for example, Robert Dale Owen, The Policy of Emancipation: In Three Letters (Philadelphia, 1863). For information on the Sea Islands experiment, see Willie Lee Rose, Rehearsal for Reconstruction: The Port Royal Experiment (Indianapolis, 1964). On the invention of “miscegenation,” see Sidney Kaplan, “The Miscegenation Issue in the Election of 1864,” in Kaplan, American Studies in Black and White: Selected Essays, 1949–1989 (Amherst, Mass., 1991), 47–100. Also see Elise Lemire, “Miscegenation”: Making Race in America (Philadelphia, 2002), 115–44. On the history of U.S racial thinking, see Bruce R. Dain, A Hideous Monster of the Mind: American Race Theory in the Early Republic (Cambridge, Mass., 2002).
De Bow’s statistical research is described in Ottis Clark Skipper, J. D. B. De Bow: Magazinist for the South (Athens, Ga., 1958); and H. G. and Winnie Leach Duncan, “The Development of Sociology in the Old South,” American Journal of Sociology 39 (1934): 649–56. The first American book to include sociology in its title was George Fitzhugh, Sociology for the South or the Failure of Free Society (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854). On spiritualism, see Ann Braude, Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women’s Rights in Nineteenth-Century America (Boston, 1989). On the rise of professional social science after the Civil War, see Thomas Haskell, The Emergence of Professional Social Science: The American Social Science Association and the Nineteenth Century Crisis of Authority (Urbana, Ill., 1977). For the relations between the war experience and public awareness of the social sphere, see, for instance, Ellen E. Guilot, Social Factors in Crime as Explained by American Writers of the Civil War and Post Civil War Period (Philadelphia, 1943). On the prejudice against former American slaves in Canada, see Jason H. Silverman, “The American Fugitive Slave in Canada: Myths and Realities,” Southern Studies 19 (Spring 1980): 215–27.
PART III • Totem Envy
Henry Rowe Schoolcraft submitted his survey of the Iroquois to the New York senate as Report of Mr. Schoolcraft, to the Secretary of State, Transmitting the Census Returns in Relation to the Indians, New York, Senate Doc. 24, 1846. The ethnologist-publisher John R. Bartlett (see chap. 3) co-published the report under the title Notes on the Iroquois: or, Contributions to the Statistics, Aboriginal History, Antiquities, and General Ethnology of Western New York (New York: Bartlett and Welford, 1846). The following year it was republished in expanded form as Notes on the Iroquois; or Contributions to American History, Antiquities, and General Ethnology (Albany: Erastus H. Pease and Co., 1847). Schoolcraft’s congressional project on the Indian tribes was titled Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the History, Present and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States, 6 vols. (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo and Co., 1851–57). It was also published as Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge: Containing All the Original Papers Laid Before Congress Respecting the History, Antiquities, Language, Ethnology, Pictography, Rites, Superstitions, and Mythology, of the Indian Tribes of the United States, 6 vols. (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1860). Lewis Henry Morgan’s study of the Iroquois was published as League of the Ho-Dé-No-Sau-Nee or Iroquois (Rochester: Sage and Brother, 1851).
On congressional publications that address Indian nations, see Steven L. Johnson, Guide to American Indian Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817–1899 (New York, 1977). On the history of the perception that the Indians were fated to disappear, see Brian W. Dippie, The Vanishing American: White Attitudes and U.S. Indian Policy (Middletown, Conn., 1982). On Indian federal policy, see Christine Bolt, American Indian Policy and American Reform: Case Studies of the Campaign to Assimilate the American Indians (London, 1987). On the contributions of the Smithsonian to American ethnology, see Curtis M. Hinsley, The Smithsonian and the American Indian: Making a Moral Anthropology in Victorian America (Washington, D.C., 1981). On the Office of Indian Affairs, see Edward E. Hill, The Office of Indian Affairs, 1824–1880: Historical Sketches (New York, 1974). For insightful analysis of the removal policy and the haunting Indian ghost in literature, see Lucy Maddox, Removals: Nineteenth Century American Literature and the Politics of American Indian Affairs (New York, 1991), and Reneé L. Bergland, The National Uncanny: Indian Ghosts and American Subjects (Hanover, N.H., 2000).
Samuel G. Morton’s book is Crania Americana; Or, a Comparative View of the Skulls of Various Aboriginal Nations of North and South America: To Which is Prefixed an Essay on the Varieties of the Human Species (Philadelphia: J. Dobson, 1839). For a remarkably useful description of the anthropological projects of Gallatin, Schoolcraft, Morton, Morgan, and Squire, see Robert E. Beider, Science Encounters the Indian, 1820–1880 (Norman, Okla., 1986). Also, see Reginald Horsman, “Scientific Racism and the American Indian in the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” American Quarterly 27 (May 1975): 152–68; and Race and Manifest Destiny (Cambridge, Mass., 1981). For federal documents that were used to justify the removal of Indians, see, for example, Correspondence on Removal of Indians West of Mississippi River, 1831–33, Senate Doc. 90, 29th Cong., 2d sess., serial 494. The Doolittle Commission’s report was published as U.S. Congress, Condition of the Indian Tribes: Report of the Joint Special Committee (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1867). On the Pottawatomie leaders visit to Washington, D.C., see Richard Smith Elliot, Notes Taken in Sixty Years (St. Louis: R. P. Studley and Co., 1883). Homi Bhabha’s observations are offered in The Location of Culture (London, 1993), 93–101. On temporality and the anthropological subject, see Johannes Fabian, Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object (New York, 1983).
Chapter Seven • Archives of Indian Knowledge
The most detailed biography of Schoolcraft is Richard G. Bremer, Indian Agent and Wilderness Scholar: The Life of Henry Rowe Schoolcraft (Mount Pleasant, Mich., 1987). For secondary literature on “savagery” and “civilization,” see Robert F. Berkhofer Jr., The White Man’s Indian: Images the American Indian from Columbus to the Present (New York, 1978), and Ronald L. Meek, Social Science and the Ignoble Savage (Cambridge, 1976). On Schoolcraft and Hiawatha, see Chase S. Osborn and Stellanova Osborn, Schoolcraft—Longfellow—Hiawatha (Lancaster, Pa., 1942). On Seth Eastman’s life and artistry, see John Francis McDermott, Seth Eastman: Pictorial Historian of the Indian (Norman, Okla., 1961).
For Squier’s archeology, see Thomas G. Tax, “E. George Squier and the Mounds, 1845– 1850,” in Toward a Science of Man: Essays in the History of Anthropology, ed. Timothy H. H. Thoresen (The Hague, 1973), 99–124; and Gordon Willey and Jeremy Sabloff, A History of American Archaeology (San Francisco, 1974), 42–87. The mystery of the mounds also inspired poetic production, such as William Cullen Bryant’s “The Prairies,” Poems (1832). For a highly detailed account on Catlin’s and Schoolcraft’s efforts to seek congressional patronage, see Brian W. Dippie, Catlin and His Contemporaries: The Politics of Patronage (Lincoln, Nebr., 1990). On chromolithography and Schoolcraft’s project, see Peter C. Marzio, The Democratic Art: Chromolithography, 1840–1900, Pictures for a Nineteenth Century America (Boston, 1979), 27–31.
Chapter Eight • The Purloined Indian
For biographical details, see Carl Resek, Lewis Henry Morgan: American Scholar (Chicago, 1960), and “How Morgan Came to Write Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity,” ed. Leslie A. White, Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters 42 (1957). Thomas Trautmann’s Lewis Henry Morgan and the Invention of Kinship (Berkeley, 1987) is the most important scholarship on Morgan’s work on kinship. Herbert M. Lloyd’s edition of League of the HO-DE’-NO-SAU-NEE or Iroquois, 2 vols. (New York, 1904) also contains useful documents. On Morgan and Marxism see, William H. Shaw, “Marx and Morgan,” History & Theory 23 (1984): 215–28. Elisabeth Tooker explores more comprehensively than most other Morgan scholars do the importance of the New Order for his ethnological output; see “The Structure of the Iroquois League: Lewis H. Morgan’s Research and Observations,” Ethnohistory 30 (Spring 1983): 141–54; and “Lewis H. Morgan and His Contemporaries,” American Anthropologist 94 (June 1992): 357–75.
On American masculinity and the Indian motif, see E. Anthony Rutondo, American Manhood: Transformation in Masculinity from the Revolution to the Modern Era (New York, 1993), 227–28. For a different psychological interpretation of Morgan’s Indian games, see Mark C. Carnes, Secret Ritual and Manhood in Victorian America (New Haven, 1989). On antebellum minstrelsy, see Eric Lott, Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class (New York, 1993). On Indians as the children of the Great Father in Washington, see Michael Paul Rogin, Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian (New York, 1975). On the history of mimicking Indians in the United States, see Philip J. Deloria, Playing Indian (New Haven, 1998).
Edgar Allan Poe’s story “The Purloined Letter” was republished in The Complete Poems and Stories of Edgar Allan Poe, with Selections from his Critical Writings, ed. Edward H. O’Neill, vol. 2 (New York, 1946), 593–607. For the Lacanian mirror stage, see Jacques Lacan, “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience,” Ecrits: A Selection, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York, 1977), 1–7; and Shoshana Felman, Jacques Lacan and the Adventure of Insight: Psychoanalysis in Contemporary Culture (Cambridge, Mass., 1987). On Franz Fanon’s work, see Ronald A. T. Judy, “Fanon’s Body of Black Experience,” in Fanon: A Critical Reader, ed. Lewis R. Gordon, T. Denean SharpleyWhiting, and Reneé T. White (Oxford, 1996), 53–73. On womanhood as a performance, see Joan Rivier, “Womanliness as a Masquerade” (1929), in Formations of Fantasy, ed. Victor Burgin, James Donald, and Cora Caplan (London, 1986), 35–44. For analyses of the social turmoil in antebellum western New York, see Mary Ryan, Cradle of the Middle Class: The Family in Oneida County, New York, 1790–1865 (Cambridge, 1981), and Paul E. Johnson, A Shopkeeper’s Millennium: Society and Revivals in Rochester, New York, 1815–1837 (New York, 1978).
Morgan’s reports on material culture were incorporated into the annual report of the Regents of the University of the State of New York: Second Annual Report of the Regents of the University, on the Condition of the State Cabinet of Natural History, New York Senate Doc. No. 20, 1848 (Albany: Charles Van Benthuysen, 1848), 84–91; Third Annual Report of the Regents of the University, New York Senate Doc. No. 75, 1849 (Albany: Weed, Parsons, 1850), 65–97 (63–95 in the rev. ed.); and Fifth Annual Report of the Regents of the University, New York Assembly Doc. No. 122, 1851 (Albany: Charles Van Benthuysen, 1852), 67–117. For a great example of Morgan’s ability to tie together domestic arrangements and political regimes, see Morgan, “Montezuma’s Dinner,” review of Hubert Howe Bancroft’s Native Races of the Pacific States, vol. 2, Civilized Nations, North American Review 122 (Apr. 1876): 265–308.
For sites and environments of memory, see Pierre Nora, “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire,” Representations 26 (Spring 1989): 7–24. On the affinity between the League of Iroquois and the American federal structure, see Bruce Johansen, Forgotten Founders: Benjamin Franklin, the Iroquois and the Rationale for the American Revolution (Ipswich, Mass., 1982); Exiled in the Land of the Free: Democracy, Indian Nations and the U.S. Constitution, eds. John Mohawk, Oren Lyons, and Bruce Johansen (Santa Fe, 1992); and Donald Grinde Jr. and Bruce E. Johansen, Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of American Democracy (Berkeley, 1991). For a critique of the notion that the Iroquois inspired American federalism, see Elisabeth Tooker, “The United States Constitution and the Iroquois League,” in The Invented Indian: Cultural Fictions and Government Policies, ed. James A. Clifton (New Brunswick, N.J., 1990), 107–28. A few years after the appearance of League of the Iroquois, Minnie Myrtle (pseudonym for Anna Johnson) published The Iroquois: The Bright Side of the Indian Character (New York, 1855), in which she popularized Morgan’s research in a further attempt to defend the character of the Indian against prejudice.
Conclusion
For information about the Commission to Strengthen Social Security, see http://www.csss.gov. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s Report was published as United States Department of Labor, Office of Policy Planning and Research, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action (Washington, D.C., 1965). On the Left reaction to Moynihan’s report and similar social studies, see, for example, William Ryan, Blaming the Victim (New York, 1970). On President Clinton’s health reform plans, see Jacob S. Hacker, The Road to Nowhere: The Genesis of President Clinton’s Plan for Health Security (Princeton, 1997), and Theda Skocpol, Boomerang: Clinton’s Health Security Effort and the Turn Against Government in U.S. Politics (New York, 1996). On the replacement of scientific neutrality with advocacy and other aspects of victims’ representation, see Alyson M. Cole, The Cult of True Victimhood (Stanford, 2006). Historian Gertrude Himmelfarb’s 1990s writings are a good example of neo-Victorian moralism; see, for example, her The De-Moralization of Society: From Victorian Virtues to Modern Values (New York, 1995).