In the 1880s and 1890s, a wave of histories of colonial empire appeared in France. But even though they were produced by members of similar republican colonial advocacy groups, these accounts narrated the history of empire in contradictory ways. Some positioned “colonial empire” as an enterprise with ancient roots, while others treated modern colonization as distinct. Some argued that French colonial empire was a unique enterprise in line with republican ideals, but others insisted that it was a European-wide project that transcended domestic political questions. By tracing the differences between these accounts, this article highlights the flexibility that characterized late nineteenth-century republican understandings of empire. It also points to the ways republican advocates for colonial expansion during this period looked both historically and comparatively to legitimize their visions for empire’s future in France.
Christina Carroll is Marlene Crandell Francis Assistant Professor of History at Kalamazoo College. She earned her Ph.D. at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill in 2015. Her dissertation analyzed debates about the meaning and value of “empire” in nineteenth-century France, looking at the ways writers, politicians, and intellectuals drew on collective memories, revolutionary ideals, and racial hierarchies to articulate competing visions of France’s political organization and imperial ambitions during this period. She published an article, “Defining ‘Empire’ under Napoleon III: Lucien-Anatole Prévost-Paradol and Paul Leroy-Beaulieu,” in the Journal of the Western Society for French History in 2013. Email: Christina.Carroll@kzoo.edu