As the Treaty of Paris (1783) brought an end to the Revolutionary War, the United States also inherited “an immense swath of western country that … doubled the territorial girth of the original thirteen colonies.” Despite such good fortune, though, the new American nation-state was still reeling from the war, and surrounded on all sides by European and Native threats, all of which produced a “situation rife with both possibility and vulnerability” (1). This dilemma – forging and expanding a nation-state amid such uncertainty during the late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries – is at the heart of Bethel Saler's insightful work. As Saler argues, the United States in 1783 was a “postcolonial republic” struggling to create stability and order “in a world of powerful empires.” Yet at the same time the young republic acquired “its own domestic empire in need of protection,” which reveals the “dual political demands [that] inevitably collided” as the United States embarked on a process of “state formation” (1–2). In other words, from the very beginning, the American nation-state was both a republic and an empire.

Saler's work revolves around this paradox of American republicanism and imperialism, and she illustrates how this dilemma unfolded in the Wisconsin territories in the aftermath of the Revolution. Since Wisconsin was “part of the central government's first experiment in state building,” Saler determines that this region provided the model for how to “build republican states wholesale out of the public domain,” although such territories ultimately “encompassed Indian homelands” (2–3). Needless to say, Native peoples had other ideas. After decades of violence and contestation, the American nation-state evolved into what Saler calls a “treaty polity,” in which the United States “generated its own vernacular, administrative structure and rules … tied to treaties to establish [US] authority and deal with the Indian presence and their manifold proprietary rights” (7). This “treaty polity” favored diplomacy over war, and sought to establish a series of “interdependent relationship[s]” with Wisconsin Native peoples, largely in the hopes of facilitating a smoother – yet nonetheless violent – surrender of Native lands to the American empire (104).

But when faced with the flood of white settlers into the “Old Northwest” during the early nineteenth century, the nation-state was forced to respond to “the clashing proprietary claims of Euro-American citizens and Indian people,” and more often than not sided with the settlers (3–4). Therefore Saler suggests that the formation of the American republic, along with its attempts to impose order and control over the “Old Northwest” and its indigenous populations, created a “double history of early western state formation” in which there existed “two different jurisdictions of federal rules governing Euro-American settlers and Indian nations” (4, 6). This argument is important for two reasons. The first is that Saler not only traces the origins and evolution of federal Indian law – which in itself was intimately tied to American state formation and empire-building – but also illustrates how Indian treaty rights and law have been distinctive and peculiar from the very beginning of US history. Second, Saler demonstrates that when all was said and done, the nation-state was first and foremost a “settlers’ empire,” in which the federal government was often forced to act in response to local circumstances and realities, rather than the other way around. And as the United States sought to impose its will – and that of its settlers – upon western lands and peoples, this process involved “specific cultural [and racial] reforms,” such as codifying “legal marriage, male-headed families, and private property,” to expedite the assimilation of that region and its diverse populace into the nation-state (8).

To say that Saler's work is brilliant is an understatement, but at the same time it is not infallible. She relies heavily on theory to frame her work, such as studies in postcolonialism, state formation, settler colonialism, nationalism, and more, all of which she synthesizes and deploys quite wonderfully. However, when writing about Native peoples and their responses to American “state formation,” Saler does not engage with some of the preeminent theoretical models related to indigenous history. This includes, but is not limited to, American Indian liberation theory and theology, indigenous critical theory, indigenous critiques of colonialism, and others.Footnote ¹ While this is not detrimental to her work, it is more of a curious omission – or a missed opportunity – given how well versed the author is in historical theory. All in all, though, Saler presents a novel and insightful addition to our understandings of how the United States was born both a republic and an empire, and how this dual identity underpinned the emergence of the nation-state during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.