In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

377 Notes Preface 1. For an account of the studies on the subject to date, see the appendix, “A Note on the Historiography of the Influence of American Constitutionalism Abroad: 1776–1989.” 2. Andrzej Rapaczynski, “Bibliographical Essay: The Influence of U.S. Constitutionalism Abroad,” in Constitutionalism and Rights: The Influence of the United States Constitution Abroad, ed. Louis Henkin and Albert J. Rosenthal (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), 460. 3. Carl J. Friedrich, The Impact of American Constitutionalism Abroad (Boston : Boston University Press, 1967), 11 (italics in original). 4. I refer in particular to my overly nationalistic approach in the earlier book of collected essays I edited, American Constitutionalism Abroad: Selected Essays in Comparative Constitutional History (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1990). David Armitage’s brilliant book, The Declaration of Independence: A Global History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), represents a historiographical breakthrough, as he placed his study of the document in the context of global history rather than in the framework of American national history. See also Armitage’s article “The Declaration of Independence and International Law,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 59 (2002):39–64. For other scholars seeking to escape the overreliance on a nationalistic approach in writing American history, see Thomas Bender, ed., Rethinking American History in a Global Age (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002); and his Nation among Nations: America’s Place in World History (New York: Hill & Wang, 2006); Eric Foner, “American Freedom in a Global Age,” American Historical Review 106 (2002):1–16; and C. A. Bayly, The Birth of the Modern World: Global Connections and Comparisons, 1780–1914 (Malden, MA: Blackwell , 2004). 5. William H. McNeill, The Great Frontier: Freedom and Hierarchy in Modern Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), 8. For the dangers connected with excessive emphasis on American exceptionalism, see Rheinhold Niebuhr , The Irony of American History (1952; repr., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), esp. the introduction by Andrew J. Bacevich. 378 Notes to the Preface 6. The phrase was used in the title of the book by John M. Headley, The Europeanization of the World: On the Origins of Human Rights and Democracy (Princton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007). Headley posits Western civilization as distinctive, based on two traditions traceable to the Renaissance and Reformation. The first–the idea of a common humanity–was derived from ancient times, developed later through natural law, and resulted in the modern concept of universal human rights. The second—the idea of tolerating political dissent—was a notion postulated first in the Protestant Reformation and eventually culminating in the practices associated with the British political system of constitutional democracy. These two Western traditions are unique, Headley argues, and need to be reaffirmed in view of the challenges presented by other civilizations and cultures in the modern world. Headley’s approach is far different from mine, which focuses primarily on American constitutionalism and its spread throughout the globe under the rubric of the expansion of Europe. 7. Three other caveats are in order regarding the focus of my study. It is not a comparative constitutional history, which would be much more comprehensive in its approach. Rather, the primary emphasis is on the American dimension of Western constitutionalism. It also does not deal directly with the internal domestic politics of the various governments involved. Finally, the story of the major common-law countries—the advanced societies in the English-speaking world that share the same tradition, namely, Britain, Canada, and Australia—will be published in a separate volume. Chap ter 1 1. Esther B. Fein, “Clamor in the East; Unshackled Czech Workers Declare Their Independence,” New York Times, November 28, 1989. 2. David Armitage, The Declaration of Independence: A Global History (Cambridge , MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 3. For Armitage’s interpretation of the Declaration in the context of the discourse on “the law of nature and of nations” that was emerging but not yet established and called “international law,” see his article “The Declaration of Independence and International Law,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 59 (2002):39–64. Armitage interprets the Declaration within the two existing conceptions of international law and claims that its role in these conceptions partly accounts for both its form and ready reception. It was not until later—generally around the turn of the nineteenth century—that there was “the shift from the naturaljurisprudential foundations of the law of nations toward a conception of positive international law became generally observable” (57). For the total number...

Share