Home CHAPTER FOUR. Chinese Exclusion and Precocious State-Building in the Nineteenth-Century American Polity
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

CHAPTER FOUR. Chinese Exclusion and Precocious State-Building in the Nineteenth-Century American Polity

View more publications by Princeton University Press
Dividing Lines
This chapter is in the book Dividing Lines
CHAPTER FOURChinese Exclusion and Precocious State-Building inthe Nineteenth-Century American PolityIt is a common and not altogether surprising presumption that theUnited States was essentially “stateless” during the nineteenth century,especially given the American polity’s penchant for localism and limitedgovernment in these years. In terms of developing centralized govern-mental functions and powers, so the argument goes, the American re-public trailed far behind its western European counterparts at least untilthe Progressive Era and New Deal (if not later). Of course, several schol-ars have highlighted the shortcomings of this received wisdom.1 Despite arelatively weak “sense of the state” in nineteenth-century America, Step-hen Skowronek observes, coercive power and institutional behavior pat-terns were molded by an unmistakable “state of courts and parties.”2Drawing on these theoretical insights, Theda Skocpol has offered evi-dence that the United States developed an expansive and advanced socialspending state well before the twentieth century. Indeed, she describesthe American federal government’s early involvement in social welfareprovision as part and parcel of a “precocious” state, one that belies no-tions of the United States as a social policy laggard.3 Consistent withSkowronek’s emphasis on the prominence of political parties during thecountry’s early political development, Skocpol finds that generous na-tional social spending on Civil War pensions in this period was preciselythe kind of government activism one would expect from a patronage-oriented system dominated by party politicians.4 These social policies ex-emplify the defining features of what Theodore Lowi has described as“distributive” policies, seemingly “positive-sum” benefits for particularindividuals and groups that raise few visible costs or conflicts. As such,Civil War pensions fit neatly with Lowi’s generalization that federal gov-ernmental activities of the nineteenth century were routinely distributive,with regulatory and redistributive policies blossoming after the turn ofthe century.5The triumph of Chinese exclusion policies during the post-Reconstruc-tion era offers a contrasting portrait of the “precocious” American statethat emerged during the nineteenth century. Rather than distributinggenerous public benefits directly to a special subset of the nation’s popu-lation, Chinese exclusion called for the federal government to assume
© 2019 Princeton University Press, Princeton

CHAPTER FOURChinese Exclusion and Precocious State-Building inthe Nineteenth-Century American PolityIt is a common and not altogether surprising presumption that theUnited States was essentially “stateless” during the nineteenth century,especially given the American polity’s penchant for localism and limitedgovernment in these years. In terms of developing centralized govern-mental functions and powers, so the argument goes, the American re-public trailed far behind its western European counterparts at least untilthe Progressive Era and New Deal (if not later). Of course, several schol-ars have highlighted the shortcomings of this received wisdom.1 Despite arelatively weak “sense of the state” in nineteenth-century America, Step-hen Skowronek observes, coercive power and institutional behavior pat-terns were molded by an unmistakable “state of courts and parties.”2Drawing on these theoretical insights, Theda Skocpol has offered evi-dence that the United States developed an expansive and advanced socialspending state well before the twentieth century. Indeed, she describesthe American federal government’s early involvement in social welfareprovision as part and parcel of a “precocious” state, one that belies no-tions of the United States as a social policy laggard.3 Consistent withSkowronek’s emphasis on the prominence of political parties during thecountry’s early political development, Skocpol finds that generous na-tional social spending on Civil War pensions in this period was preciselythe kind of government activism one would expect from a patronage-oriented system dominated by party politicians.4 These social policies ex-emplify the defining features of what Theodore Lowi has described as“distributive” policies, seemingly “positive-sum” benefits for particularindividuals and groups that raise few visible costs or conflicts. As such,Civil War pensions fit neatly with Lowi’s generalization that federal gov-ernmental activities of the nineteenth century were routinely distributive,with regulatory and redistributive policies blossoming after the turn ofthe century.5The triumph of Chinese exclusion policies during the post-Reconstruc-tion era offers a contrasting portrait of the “precocious” American statethat emerged during the nineteenth century. Rather than distributinggenerous public benefits directly to a special subset of the nation’s popu-lation, Chinese exclusion called for the federal government to assume
© 2019 Princeton University Press, Princeton
Downloaded on 23.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400824984-006/html?srsltid=AfmBOopF66CsWghgrxtq9Oo8NUz_a0p0D8Pi5h7alY9J_u6FgvohVeKf
Scroll to top button