Fred Anderson and Andrew Clayton suggest a revisionist, imperial reading of American history: “At least from the middle of the eighteenth century to the present, American wars have either expressed a certain kind of imperial ambition or have resulted directly from successes in previous imperial conflicts. ‘Imperialism’ is, of course, a loaded term, full of negative connotations. We suggest, however, that it can most productively be understood in the sense of the proressive extension of a polity’s, or a people’s dominion over the lands and lives of others, as a means of imposing what the builders of empires understand as order and peace on dangerous or unstable peripheral regions. To found a narrative of American development on the concept of dominion is to forgo the exceptionalist traditions of American culture – those durable notions that the United States is essentially not like other nations but rather an example for them to emulate, a ‘shining city on a hill’ – in favor of a perspective more like the one from which historians routinely survey long periods of European, African, or Asian history. Indeed, because throughout recorded history, ‘empire has been a way of life for most of the peoples of the world, either as conqueror or conquered,’ the story we outline makes the long-term pattern of America’s development look broadly similar to those of other large, successful nations.”
