{"id":{"repo_id":"cambridge","oai_identifier":"oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/401289"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cambridge/oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/401289","repository":{"repo_id":"cambridge","name":"Cambridge University","base_url":"https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Violence and American Statebuilding, 1860-1895","abstract":"Theorists of the American state have neglected how private forms of violence—frontier marauders, corporate militias, and lynching communities—have established and maintained US government power at the local, state, and national level. This dissertation’s three case studies correct that tendency. They explore how American statebuilders deployed, sanctioned, or turned a blind eye toward private actors conducting violence that aligned with overarching state priorities including territorial expansion, industrial discipline, and the generation of racial order. The dissertation narrates an ideological and institutional story centred on ascertaining whether the US was invested in maintaining a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence, per the theory of Max Weber, or whether it represented a different kind of state entirely. Its answer rests in the latter camp: the US was not a Weberian state and demands a novel theory of violence grounded in historical research.","abstract_html":"Theorists of the American state have neglected how private forms of violence—frontier marauders, corporate militias, and lynching communities—have established and maintained US government power at the local, state, and national level. This dissertation’s three case studies correct that tendency. They explore how American statebuilders deployed, sanctioned, or turned a blind eye toward private actors conducting violence that aligned with overarching state priorities including territorial expansion, industrial discipline, and the generation of racial order. The dissertation narrates an ideological and institutional story centred on ascertaining whether the US was invested in maintaining a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence, per the theory of Max Weber, or whether it represented a different kind of state entirely. Its answer rests in the latter camp: the US was not a Weberian state and demands a novel theory of violence grounded in historical research.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Wood, Hugh"],"institution":"University of Cambridge","degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Gerstle, gary"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2025,"date_issued":"2025-08-22","date_published":"2025-08-22","updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:33:25Z","subjects":["American Political Development","Statebuilding","Violence"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/c3dbaade-81d3-4b8b-9937-8052f3cee73b/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.129179","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.doi"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Gerstle, gary"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Wood, Hugh"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2025-08-22"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Cambridge"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby URI","values":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/401289"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["American Political Development","Statebuilding","Violence"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/c3dbaade-81d3-4b8b-9937-8052f3cee73b/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"]},{"key":"dc:rights.embargodate","label":"Dc Rights Embargodate","values":["2027-04-15"]},{"key":"dc:rights.embargotype","label":"Dc Rights Embargotype","values":["embargo"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.doi","label":"DOI","values":["https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.129179"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/b49e7ddb-8a20-41e8-92ff-4dcc4c39f9a6/download"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Theorists of the American state have neglected how private forms of violence—frontier marauders, corporate militias, and lynching communities—have established and maintained US government power at the local, state, and national level. This dissertation’s three case studies correct that tendency. They explore how American statebuilders deployed, sanctioned, or turned a blind eye toward private actors conducting violence that aligned with overarching state priorities including territorial expansion, industrial discipline, and the generation of racial order. The dissertation narrates an ideological and institutional story centred on ascertaining whether the US was invested in maintaining a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence, per the theory of Max Weber, or whether it represented a different kind of state entirely. Its answer rests in the latter camp: the US was not a Weberian state and demands a novel theory of violence grounded in historical research."]},{"key":"dc:format.checksum.md5","label":"Dc Format Checksum Md5","values":["04d2f4e7dd32c3d776638cbec3c628b9","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Violence and American Statebuilding, 1860-1895"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Gerstle, gary"],"dc:creator":["Wood, Hugh"],"dc:date.issued":["2025-08-22"],"dc:description.abstract":["Theorists of the American state have neglected how private forms of violence—frontier marauders, corporate militias, and lynching communities—have established and maintained US government power at the local, state, and national level. This dissertation’s three case studies correct that tendency. They explore how American statebuilders deployed, sanctioned, or turned a blind eye toward private actors conducting violence that aligned with overarching state priorities including territorial expansion, industrial discipline, and the generation of racial order. The dissertation narrates an ideological and institutional story centred on ascertaining whether the US was invested in maintaining a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence, per the theory of Max Weber, or whether it represented a different kind of state entirely. Its answer rests in the latter camp: the US was not a Weberian state and demands a novel theory of violence grounded in historical research."],"dc:format.checksum.md5":["04d2f4e7dd32c3d776638cbec3c628b9","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"],"dc:identifier.doi":["https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.129179"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/b49e7ddb-8a20-41e8-92ff-4dcc4c39f9a6/download"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Cambridge"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/401289"],"dc:rights":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/c3dbaade-81d3-4b8b-9937-8052f3cee73b/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"],"dc:rights.embargodate":["2027-04-15"],"dc:rights.embargotype":["embargo"],"dc:subject":["American Political Development","Statebuilding","Violence"],"dc:title":["Violence and American Statebuilding, 1860-1895"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Doctoral"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:33:25Z"}