What do you think?
Rate this book
The United States in the World
Path of Empire: Panama and the California Gold Rush
Most people in the United States have forgotten that tens of thousands of U.S. citizens migrated westward to California by way of Panama during the California Gold Rush. Decades before the completion of the Panama Canal in 1914, this slender spit of land abruptly became the linchpin of the fastest route between New York City and San Francisco―a route that combined travel by ship to the east coast of Panama, an overland crossing to Panama City, and a final voyage by ship to California. In Path of Empire , Aims McGuinness presents a novel understanding of the intertwined histories of the California Gold Rush, the course of U.S. empire, and anti-imperialist politics in Latin America. Between 1848 and 1856, Panama saw the building, by a U.S. company, of the first transcontinental railroad in world history, the final abolition of slavery, the establishment of universal manhood suffrage, the foundation of an autonomous Panamanian state, and the first of what would become a long list of military interventions by the United States. Using documents found in Panamanian, Colombian, and U.S. archives, McGuinness reveals how U.S. imperial projects in Panama were integral to developments in California and the larger process of U.S. continental expansion. Path of Empire offers a model for the new transnational history by unbinding the gold rush from the confines of U.S. history as traditionally told and narrating that event as the history of Panama, a small place of global importance in the mid-1800s. For more information about the United States in the World series, click .
264 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2007
2 people are currently reading
62 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
June 15, 2018
read this for school but u know what! that counts! also its a cool bit of history i didnt know
August 29, 2011
Required:
Aims McGuinness, Path of Empire: Panama and the California Gold Rush, Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 2008
Michel Gobat, Confronting the American Dream: Nicaragua under U.S. Imperial Rule, Durham: Duke University Press, 2005: 21-41
Supplemental:
Andrés Reséndez, “National Identity on a Shifting Border: Texas and New Mexico in the Age of Transition, 1821-48,” Journal of American History 86:2 (1999): 668-88.
Reséndez’ work is a study in the development of national identity as it pertains to the Texan and New Mexican borders during the period of transition from Mexican territory to United States territory. These regions originally formed “Mexico’s Far North” and eventually created “America’s Southwest,” a change accompanied by upheavals in the topographic, political and economic orientations of the borders. The transition to Americanization was fought by Mexican efforts using several different methods. Publications and public schooling sought to instill patriotism for the southern fatherland but with little success. A Montezuma myth, synthesized by an unknown source, depicted Montezuma as a common man who was revealed to be a Jesus Christ figure and the creator of the Aztec Empire. This myth was used to cultivate Mexican identity within Pueblo communities. Yet the most powerful of the tools implemented to form national identity was the use of ritual and symbol. The Mexican government replaced Spanish effigies, coins, flags and commemoration ceremonies with their own, often linking religious symbology from the Catholic Church with symbols of Mexican sovereignty, to instill a sense of connection to the nation through faith in God. However, an overexertion of ceremony and mandated patriotism worked against the Mexican government and contributed to its early instability. Meanwhile, Anglo-American expansionism was encroaching on the very same border through economic penetration, a much more powerful force than symbology. Commerce along the Santa Fe Trail, established in 1821, provided an impetus for the creation of new social and economic linkages, primarily through commercial ventures emulating those of the American merchants entering the area. Both Texas and New Mexico went through similar economic transitions, Americanizing along the way. Land distribution through empresarios in Texas ensured colonization and the continual growth of the economy in the area; this was also the case in New Mexico. With the establishment of state-controlled, land-based transaction, Texas and New Mexico developed a sense of autonomy, thriving in the absence of real Mexican oversight. Feelings of autonomy led to revolution; a relatively bloody war ensued in Texas as not only Anglo settlers but Tejanos actively fought for independence from Mexico. Contrastingly, New Mexico was taken with hardly an opposing argument. The identity of this region constructed itself not based on ethnicity, tradition or religion but on politics that depended on a newly founded economic structure. This is the link between the three readings.
Economic sovereignty and the aspiration to trade and modernize is a common drive among Nicaragua, Panama and the borderlands. Expectations of economic expansion were different in each location and produced different outcomes; however, each invited American trade and commerce. As these regions developed economic independence, they created a political identity that would form their foundation.
In the case of Nicaragua, the nation welcomed American travelers on their way to the California Gold Rush, bringing with them needs for services, transportation and lodging along the way. This first flood of commerce encouraged Nicaragua to adapt itself more to the American culture, economically and culturally in order to attract continual growth. The decision to welcome William Walker would later be detrimental to the nation, but the initial hope was that he would be able to make Nicaragua an international emporium possessing of worldwide trade and renown. The Liberal Party hired Walker to help overthrow the Conservative Party and restructure the nation. While he agreed with his mission, his definition of reconstruction differed severely from his employers’, . Wanting to create a haven for plantation ownership, Walker forced the reinstatement of slavery in the name of economic civilization in Nicaragua, with the intention of forcing the native elite to serve the “superior Anglo race.” In contrast to the cases of Texas and New Mexico, Nicaragua’s ordeal with expansionism led to revolution once Walker’s former supporters realized and rejected his Americanization project. When hopes of civilized modernization disappeared, Nicaragua had no choice but to create a political identity in opposition to the regressive tactics of Americanization brought about by Walker. This revolution would leave thousands dead and affect the economy, in disastrous ways, virtually removing Nicaragua from the transit industry for the rest of the New York to San Francisco rush of gold diggers. Although Nicaragua had already created political cultures, the experiment with changing economy redefined what it meant to be sovereign and autonomous.
In Panama, a similar situation arose; the Gold Rush created a boom in the transit economy and created a gateway for more United States trade and contact. When the economic interests of US investors begin to hinder the ability of small entrepreneurial endeavors, the people of the nation created communities of opposition to their increasingly diminishing economic opportunity. While the initial invitation for American business to modernize and industrialize the region had perks in the beginning—such as offering labor and other service opportunities—it became clear to the people that US interest was not in developing Panama but rather in developing American enterprise in Panama. Panama rejected American right over its dominion based on its own autonomy. In rejecting American control, Panama joined the tradition of Nicaragua in creating a political solidarity against foreign authority.
The creation of political identity is a difficult process. As we see in these three studies, it can happen as a reaction to the presence of an unwanted force. In the case of Texas and New Mexico, the identity created wanted sovereignty from Mexico to participate in commerce and government freely. In the case of Panama and Nicaragua, we see its creation in opposition to once welcomed entities, which sought to manipulate resources rather than develop them in order to attain equal economic and political grounds. These three cases raise many questions. How does creating political identity in opposition to another force differ from the creation of identity independently? Does such creation exist? What of intraregional differences—how might they be resolved once the “other” is rejected? Lastly, how do these actions affect current issues on an international stage?
Aims McGuinness, Path of Empire: Panama and the California Gold Rush, Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 2008
Michel Gobat, Confronting the American Dream: Nicaragua under U.S. Imperial Rule, Durham: Duke University Press, 2005: 21-41
Supplemental:
Andrés Reséndez, “National Identity on a Shifting Border: Texas and New Mexico in the Age of Transition, 1821-48,” Journal of American History 86:2 (1999): 668-88.
Reséndez’ work is a study in the development of national identity as it pertains to the Texan and New Mexican borders during the period of transition from Mexican territory to United States territory. These regions originally formed “Mexico’s Far North” and eventually created “America’s Southwest,” a change accompanied by upheavals in the topographic, political and economic orientations of the borders. The transition to Americanization was fought by Mexican efforts using several different methods. Publications and public schooling sought to instill patriotism for the southern fatherland but with little success. A Montezuma myth, synthesized by an unknown source, depicted Montezuma as a common man who was revealed to be a Jesus Christ figure and the creator of the Aztec Empire. This myth was used to cultivate Mexican identity within Pueblo communities. Yet the most powerful of the tools implemented to form national identity was the use of ritual and symbol. The Mexican government replaced Spanish effigies, coins, flags and commemoration ceremonies with their own, often linking religious symbology from the Catholic Church with symbols of Mexican sovereignty, to instill a sense of connection to the nation through faith in God. However, an overexertion of ceremony and mandated patriotism worked against the Mexican government and contributed to its early instability. Meanwhile, Anglo-American expansionism was encroaching on the very same border through economic penetration, a much more powerful force than symbology. Commerce along the Santa Fe Trail, established in 1821, provided an impetus for the creation of new social and economic linkages, primarily through commercial ventures emulating those of the American merchants entering the area. Both Texas and New Mexico went through similar economic transitions, Americanizing along the way. Land distribution through empresarios in Texas ensured colonization and the continual growth of the economy in the area; this was also the case in New Mexico. With the establishment of state-controlled, land-based transaction, Texas and New Mexico developed a sense of autonomy, thriving in the absence of real Mexican oversight. Feelings of autonomy led to revolution; a relatively bloody war ensued in Texas as not only Anglo settlers but Tejanos actively fought for independence from Mexico. Contrastingly, New Mexico was taken with hardly an opposing argument. The identity of this region constructed itself not based on ethnicity, tradition or religion but on politics that depended on a newly founded economic structure. This is the link between the three readings.
Economic sovereignty and the aspiration to trade and modernize is a common drive among Nicaragua, Panama and the borderlands. Expectations of economic expansion were different in each location and produced different outcomes; however, each invited American trade and commerce. As these regions developed economic independence, they created a political identity that would form their foundation.
In the case of Nicaragua, the nation welcomed American travelers on their way to the California Gold Rush, bringing with them needs for services, transportation and lodging along the way. This first flood of commerce encouraged Nicaragua to adapt itself more to the American culture, economically and culturally in order to attract continual growth. The decision to welcome William Walker would later be detrimental to the nation, but the initial hope was that he would be able to make Nicaragua an international emporium possessing of worldwide trade and renown. The Liberal Party hired Walker to help overthrow the Conservative Party and restructure the nation. While he agreed with his mission, his definition of reconstruction differed severely from his employers’, . Wanting to create a haven for plantation ownership, Walker forced the reinstatement of slavery in the name of economic civilization in Nicaragua, with the intention of forcing the native elite to serve the “superior Anglo race.” In contrast to the cases of Texas and New Mexico, Nicaragua’s ordeal with expansionism led to revolution once Walker’s former supporters realized and rejected his Americanization project. When hopes of civilized modernization disappeared, Nicaragua had no choice but to create a political identity in opposition to the regressive tactics of Americanization brought about by Walker. This revolution would leave thousands dead and affect the economy, in disastrous ways, virtually removing Nicaragua from the transit industry for the rest of the New York to San Francisco rush of gold diggers. Although Nicaragua had already created political cultures, the experiment with changing economy redefined what it meant to be sovereign and autonomous.
In Panama, a similar situation arose; the Gold Rush created a boom in the transit economy and created a gateway for more United States trade and contact. When the economic interests of US investors begin to hinder the ability of small entrepreneurial endeavors, the people of the nation created communities of opposition to their increasingly diminishing economic opportunity. While the initial invitation for American business to modernize and industrialize the region had perks in the beginning—such as offering labor and other service opportunities—it became clear to the people that US interest was not in developing Panama but rather in developing American enterprise in Panama. Panama rejected American right over its dominion based on its own autonomy. In rejecting American control, Panama joined the tradition of Nicaragua in creating a political solidarity against foreign authority.
The creation of political identity is a difficult process. As we see in these three studies, it can happen as a reaction to the presence of an unwanted force. In the case of Texas and New Mexico, the identity created wanted sovereignty from Mexico to participate in commerce and government freely. In the case of Panama and Nicaragua, we see its creation in opposition to once welcomed entities, which sought to manipulate resources rather than develop them in order to attain equal economic and political grounds. These three cases raise many questions. How does creating political identity in opposition to another force differ from the creation of identity independently? Does such creation exist? What of intraregional differences—how might they be resolved once the “other” is rejected? Lastly, how do these actions affect current issues on an international stage?
September 5, 2024
It took me longer to read this, it got a lot of historical context and a bit dry but still fascinating.
October 25, 2008
Good take on early US intervention (direct & indirect) in Latin America. Didn't realize that a US company built a railroad through Panama territory during the Gold Rush! A fascinating book.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews