Ayuba Suleiman Diallo’s 1731 journey from a trader of enslaved people, to enslaved, and back a trader of enslaved people is both remarkable and seemingly contradictory. However, his involvement in the West African trading networks bridged the goods-centered market and the ensuing one centered around enslaved people. Thus, his actions reflect the economic insecurity that permeated Senegambia, and his return to trading enslaved people illustrates the need for a competitive edge in these newmarkets. Foundational to his return were his manipulation of race, color, and religion in response to an increasing demand for enslaved people. Diallo established himself as different than the enslaved people around him, positing that he was instead more similar to his white captors. Through his royal mannerisms and devout practice of Islam, Diallo befriended Thomas Bluett, James Oglethorpe, the Duke of Montagu, and even King George II and Queen Caroline. He was branded “the Fortunate Slave” and frequently described as a white man with black skin. Diallo’s actions allowed him to regain enough social capital to travel to England and eventually return home to Bondu in present-day Senegal. Once home, he participated in the trade of enslaved people far more zealously than before his capture, which emphasizes how the Senegambian markets had transitioned away from being goods-centered during his absence in response to British demand. Diallo’s story illustrates the changing nature of Trans-Atlantic slave trade as well as eighteenth-century attitudes towards race and slavery.

The Confederate States of America folded as a political project in 1865, but ex-Confederates refused to surrender the ideological cornerstones of a culture of white supremacy. That Lost Cause was a Confederacy of ideas that seized the imaginations of those who claimed a stake in the failed republic. But a curious thing happened to a backwards-looking mythos that idealized local democracy over distant tyranny, white over black, and agrarian manhood over industrial mechanization. Like the ex-Confederate leaders who fled the United States after defeat, the Lost Cause migrated from the vanquished South to South America, finding fertile soil in Brazil, a nation with a deep history of analogous conflicts over race, power, and the allure of an immaculate historical myth. From there, the confederados, as they would come to be called, challenged by a Brazilian society that defied their preconceived notions of race and slavery, would amalgamate their white heritage and local Brazilian culture into an identity that was both wholly unique yet still distinctly Confederate, an identity that manages to persist to this day. Confederados in Brazil today recover an imagined heritage that was portable: like the CSA in North America, Confederados romanticize and mythologize racial identity and a struggle against a distant federal tyranny threatening individual rights. Yet at the same time, an even more curious thing has happened: they have seemingly betrayed their white heritage in certain aspects and adopted distinctly un-Confederate attitudes towards race, the very same attitudes that they had struggled to. Through analyzing both this movement and the analogous Lost Cause movement in the United States, one can begin to understand the allure that such movements have for particular groups of people, as well as how these movements have persisted so long after their initial founding.

This paper argues that the use of masculine rhetoric in the expansion of the United States derived from a larger ideological system that glorified masculinity through imperialism. The United States relied on the frontier myth, a belief that asserted that the nation was formed through the struggle of settling the frontier. The American man possessed the strength to conquer the wilderness and the people who already inhabited it. This version of masculinity combined not only elements of nationalism but also of race. As the United States continued to expand its borders through imperialism, the masculine identity associated with the frontier myth persisted in the psyche of the American male. The conquering man became the ideal of the American man, and rhetoric regarding the national need for this figure in the continual expansion of America justified wars of imperialism. In order to observe recurring patterns of masculine rhetoric, this thesis adopts a comparative approach to American imperialism by analyzing two wars separated by time and political climate; the U.S.-Mexican War and the Spanish-American War. Systems of ideology are always embodied by people; consequently this thesis applies a biographical approach to the key political figures who influenced the United States’ route to war. These men serve as examples of the internalization and intersectionality of masculine rhetoric as well as the outward expression of those systems in the form of imperialism.

Jacob D. Green's slave narrative breaks standards surrounding slave narratives and wrote a strong, unique story that allowed his audience to relate to his human characters. His narrative has unprecedented qualities that make his autobiography distinctive. An attempt to locate him in historical documents proved inconclusive and some of his stories elaborated, but his narrative is still a valuable piece of literature that gives historians a glimpse into slavery in the United States and the abolition movement in England.

This dissertation analyzes two regional systems of involuntary servitude (Indian captive slavery and Mexican debt peonage) over a period spanning roughly two centuries. Following a chronological framework, it examines the development of captive slavery in the Southwest beginning in the early 1700s and lasting through the mid-1800s, by which time debt peonage emerged as a secondary form of coerced servitude that augmented Indian slavery in order to meet increasing demand for labor. While both peonage and captive slavery had an indelible impact on cultural and social systems in the Southwest, this dissertation places those two labor systems within the context of North American slavery and sectional agitation during the antebellum period. The existence of debt bondage and Indian captivity in New Mexico had a significant impact on America's judicial and political institutions during the Reconstruction era.

Debt peonage and Indian slavery had a lasting influence on American politics during the period 1846 to 1867, forcing lawmakers to acknowledge the fact that slavery existed in many forms. Following the Civil War, legislators realized that the Thirteenth Amendment did not cast a wide enough net, because peonage and captive slavery were represented as voluntary in nature and remained commonplace throughout New Mexico. When Congress passed a measure in 1867 explicitly outlawing peonage and captive slavery in New Mexico, they implicitly acknowledged the shortcomings of the Thirteenth Amendment. The preexistence of peonage and Indian slavery in the Southwest inculcated a broader understanding of involuntary labor in post-Civil War America and helped to expand political and judicial philosophy regarding free labor. These two systems played a crucial role in America's transition from free to unfree labor in the mid-1800s and contributed to the judicial and political frameworks that undermined slavery.

This research explores the various and often conflicting interpretations of the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, an event seemingly lost in the public mind of twenty-first century America. The conflict, which pitted United States forces under the command of Major General Andrew Jackson against a militant offshoot of the Creek Confederacy, known as the Redsticks, ranks as the single most staggering loss of life in annals of American Indian warfare. Today, exactly 200 years after the conflict, the legacy of Horseshoe Bend stands as an obscure and often unheard of event. Drawing upon over two centuries of unpublished archival data, newspapers, and political propaganda this research argues that the dominate narrative of Northern history, the shadowy details of the War of 1812, and the erasure of shameful events from the legacy of westward expansion have all contributed to transform what once was a battle of epic proportions, described by Jackson himself as an "extermination," into a seemingly forgotten affair. Ultimately, the Battle of Horseshoe Bend's elusiveness has allowed for the production of various historical myths and political messages, critiques and hyperboles, facts and theories. Hailed as a triumph during the War of 1812, and a high-water mark by the proponents of Manifest Destiny, Jackson's victory has also experienced its fair share of American derision and disregard. Whereas some have criticized the battle as a "cold blooded massacre," others have glorified it as a touchstone of American masculinity, and excused it as a natural event in the unfolding of human evolution. Despite the battle's controversial nature, on 3 August 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a strong supporter of the National Park Service, approved act HR 11766 establishing Horseshoe Bend National Military Park, the very first national park in the state of Alabama. Hailed and forgotten, silenced and celebrated, exploited and yet largely unknown. This research explores what happened after the smoke cleared at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. It is a story about the production of history, the power of the past, and the malleability of the American mind.

This thesis examines the evolution of the interpretation of the battle of Gettysburg, as well as how the analysis and presentation of the battle by multiple stakeholders have affected the public's understanding of the violence of the engagement and subsequently its understanding of the war's repercussions. While multiple components of the visitor experience are examined throughout this thesis, the majority of analysis focuses on the interpretive wayside signs that dot the landscape throughout the Gettysburg National Military Park. These wayside signs are the creation of the Park Service, and while they are not strictly interpretive in nature, they remain an extremely visible component of the visitor's park experience. As such, they are an important reflection of the interpretive priorities of the Park Service, an agency which is likely the dominant public history entity shaping understanding of the American Civil War. Memory at Gettysburg in the first decades after the battle largely sought to focus on celebratory accounts of the clash that praised the valor of all white combatants as a means of bringing about resolution between the two sides. By focusing on triumphant memories of martial valor in a conflict fought over ambiguous reasons, veterans and the public at large neglected unsettling and difficult conversations. These avoided discussions primarily concerned what the war had really accomplished aside from preserving the Union, as white Americans appeared unwilling to confront the war's abolitionist legacy. Additionally, they avoided discussion of the horrific levels of violence that the war had truly required of its combatants. Reconciliationist memories of the conflict that did not discuss the violence and trauma of combat were thus incorporated into early interpretations of Civil War battlefields, and continued to hinder understanding of the true savagery of combat into the present. This thesis focuses on the presence (or lack thereof) of violence and trauma in the wayside interpretive signage at Gettysburg, and argues that a more active interpretation of the war's remarkably violent and traumatic legacies can assist in dislodging a faulty legacy of reconciliationist remembrance that continues to permeate public memory of the Civil War.

This thesis looks at the 1842 Supreme Court ruling of Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the events leading up to this case, and the subsequent legislative fallout from the decision. The Supreme Court rendered this ruling in an effort to clear up confusion regarding the conflict between state and federal law with regard to fugitive slave recovery. Instead, the ambiguities contained within the ruling further complicated the issue of fugitive slave recovery. This complication commenced when certain state legislatures exploited an inadvertent loophole contained in the ruling. Thus, instead of mollifying sectional tension by generating a clear and concise process of fugitive slave recovery, the Supreme Court exacerbated sectional tension. Through an analysis of newspapers, journals, laws and other contemporary sources, this thesis demonstrates that Prigg v. Pennsylvania and the subsequent legislative reactions garnered much attention. Through a review of secondary literature covering this period, a lack of demonstrable coverage of this court case emerges, which shows that scant coverage has been paid to this important episode in antebellum America. Additionally, the lack of attention paid to this court case ignores a critical episode of rising sectional tension during the 1840s.