Reviewed by:

• Our Suffering Brethren: Foreign Captivity and
  Nationalism in the Early United States by David J. Dzurec III
• Sarah Sillin (bio)

David J. Dzurec III's Our Suffering Brethren traces a history of white American captivity from the American Revolution to the end of the Barbary War. Throughout this era, the British navy and Barbary corsairs repeatedly captured American ships—whether to impress, imprison, ransom, or enslave those aboard—thereby evoking a sense of American vulnerability (7). Dzurec's history demonstrates that captivity profoundly influenced early US politics by eliciting widespread public concern; it thereby became a source of nationalism that served complex, sometimes contradictory interests. Americans' loss of freedom offered a key justification first for the Revolutionaries' cause and then for a stronger federal government. Yet rather than simply unifying the country, captivity became the subject of fierce political debates. Indeed, Dzurec argues that Federalists' and Republicans' responses established a key pattern in US politics: each party asserted its unique ability to provide national security, even as both invoked the same nationalist rhetoric by playing on fear of a foreign threat (194).

In examining such rhetoric, Dzurec develops a nuanced reading of how international encounters shaped the government's relation to citizens. Federalists and Republicans alike located political capital in American captives' suffering, as they claimed authority to enter into new wars, negotiate for US captives, or forge treaties. But even as politicians played on voters' anxieties, he suggests, so too did public discourse inform US politics. The apparent arbitrariness of captivity, which elicited concerns that "any American could be taken captive," also thereby fostered a sense that "any American could join the debate about the nature of Independence" (38). Though the nation's early presidents responded to this sentiment with [End Page 300] calls for limiting public involvement—like the private fundraising efforts to redeem Americans captive in Algeria—public opinion and political policies continued to shape one another.

To understand the reciprocal influence of public opinion and political rhetoric, Dzurec explores a rich historical archive. His readings of sailors' letters and narratives (with particular attention to Ethan Allen's and John Dodge's memoirs) highlight the influential role of their accounts in circulating news of captivity and shaping Americans' impressions of these events. Moreover, he delves into Americans' responses to such accounts by analyzing the more official discourse of political policies and representatives' correspondence, alongside public commentary in news editorials, plays, and printed accounts of local festivities. Together, these texts allow him to argue that politicians' and private citizens' responses informed one another, while considering how they shifted over time. Captivity became first a touchstone in arguments for American independence and confederation in the late eighteenth century and then a lightning rod in early nineteenth-century political debates as the Federalist and Republican parties both purported to be the party of national security.

Dzurec moves chronologically, so that the first half of Our Suffering Brethren identifies how captivity fostered American nationalism, starting with British impressment. Of course, captivity was not a new experience or trope; rather, Dzurec contends, colonial-era captivity narratives provided revolutionaries with "a historical precedent for the type of threat they faced" (37). Moreover, he suggests that stories of captivity became a means for revolutionaries to claim sympathy. Yet rather than halt captivity, the end of the war left Americans unprotected by British treaties with Barbary states. When Algerian corsairs captured American merchant ships in 1785, captivity took on new importance in US politics by fostering interest in a stronger federal government.

Even as Americans' captivity strengthened arguments for the federal government, though, it also raised new possibilities for individual Americans to participate in foreign relations. Dzurec explores how such private involvement ebbed and flowed. In the 1780s, Americans began fundraising to help ransom their countrymen, then paused this involvement when the Constitutional Convention afforded the government more power to act on their behalf. Although Washington and the Federalists believed "public sentiment ought not play a role in politics outside of election" (63), the [End Page 301] formation of Democratic...

审核人：

• 我们的苦难弟兄：
  美国早期的外国囚禁和民族主义
• 莎拉·席林（生物）

David J. Dzurec III的苦难弟兄追溯了从美国独立战争到巴巴里战争结束的美国白人被囚禁的历史。在整个这个时代，英国海军和巴巴里海盗屡次俘虏了美国船只，无论是给他们留下深刻印象，监禁，勒索赎金还是将其奴役，从而唤起了美国人的脆弱感（7）。德祖雷克（Dzurec）的历史表明，囚禁引起了广泛的公众关注，对美国早期政治产生了深远的影响。因此，它成为民族主义的根源，为复杂的，有时是矛盾的利益服务。美国人丧失自由首先为革命者的事业提供了关键依据，然后为更强大的联邦政府提供了重要依据。然而，被囚禁不仅仅是简单地统一国家，而是成为激烈的政治辩论的主题。的确，祖雷克（Dzurec）认为，联邦主义者和共和党的

在审视这种言论时，卓雷克对国际遭遇如何塑造政府与公民关系的方式进行了细致入微的解读。联邦主义者和共和党人都将政治资本定位在美国俘虏的苦难中，因为他们声称有权进行新的战争，为美国俘虏进行谈判或缔结条约。但他建议，即使政客们对选民的焦虑情绪起了作用，公众话语也对美国政治产生了影响。被囚禁的明显任意性引起人们对“任何美国人都可以被俘虏”的担忧，从而也使人产生了一种感觉，即“任何美国人都可以加入关于独立性的辩论”（38）。尽管美国早期的总统通过[End Page 300]回应了这一观点。要求限制公众参与的呼吁（例如，为赎回俘虏阿尔及利亚的美国人进行的私人筹款努力），舆论和政治政策继续相互影响。

为了了解舆论和政治言论的相互影响，祖瑞克探索了丰富的历史档案。他对水手的信件和叙述的阅读（尤其是对伊森·艾伦（Ethan Allen）和约翰·道奇（John Dodge）的回忆录的阅读）突显了他们的叙述在散播被囚禁新闻和塑造美国人对这些事件的印象中的影响力。此外，他通过分析更正式的政治政策话语和代表的书信，以及新闻社论，戏剧和当地庆祝活动的印刷报道中的美国人，来研究美国人对此类报道的反应。这些案文在一起使他可以辩称，政客和私人公民的回应是相互借鉴的，同时考虑了他们如何随着时间而变化。

祖雷克按时间顺序移动，因此我们的苦难弟兄会的前半部分从英国留下深刻印象开始，就确定了囚禁如何助长了美国民族主义。当然，囚禁不是新的经历或陷阱。佐雷克认为，相反，殖民时代的囚禁叙事为革命者提供了“他们所面临的威胁类型的历史先例”（37）。此外，他建议囚禁的故事成为革命者表达同情的一种手段。然而，战争的结束并没有阻止囚禁，而是使美国人不受英国与巴巴里各州签订的条约的保护。1785年，当阿尔及利亚海盗劫持美国商船时，囚禁在美国政治中变得更加重要，因为它引起了人们对更强大的联邦政府的兴趣。

尽管美国人的t职加强了对联邦政府的争论，但也为个人美国人参与外交关系带来了新的可能性。Dzurec探索了这种私人参与如何消退和流动。在1780年代，美国人开始筹集资金帮助赎金，以赎回他们的同胞，然后在《宪法公约》赋予政府更多的权力代表他们采取行动时中止了参与。尽管华盛顿和联邦主义者认为“公众情绪不应在选举之外的政治中发挥作用”（63），但[End Page 301]民主党的形成...