StarDestroyer.Net BBS

After the Revolutionary War, the US was more a loose confederation of independent nations than a cohesive political unit. The Articles of Confederation provided for a central government with very little actual authority; it was essentially a mutual defense and free-trade pact. The citizens of each state identified far more with their home state than with the union of states as a whole -- John Hancock probably would have self-identified as from Massachusetts, not the United States, for example.

But now, twenty-three decades later, it seems that the identity of US citizens is firmly wrapped up in the entire United States instead of his home state. "I'm proud to be an American" was a popular song post-9/11; how many "I'm proud to be a Hoosier", or "I'm proud to be a Virginian" songs are there? If an American is abroad and he's asked where he's from, he'll probably answer, "the United States", rather than "Indiana" or "Wyoming" or "California".

Certainly this change was a gradual readjustment of national identity; when could it be said to have largely taken place? What factors contributed to the change? I would think that in some sense the Civil War was a factor in this change, but my command of history is hardly adequate to determine.

Civil War and the Twentieth Century were definitely the largest aspects.

The Civil War was the biggest, if not the last, nail in the coffin, but it really started with George Washington; while many of the other Founders identified with their home states, he insisted that the United States must be a cohesive nation, even before the Constitution was drafted. I believe I referenced some of his writings on the subject in my post on the Civil War in this forum; if not (or if you require more; he wrote extensively on the subject) then I can cite them here if you require.

Something else which might have had an effect was the westward expansion of the USA. The 13 colonies had all been individual, separate, and self-governing dependencies of Britain for generations (the eldest, Virginia, for 170 years, and the youngest, Georgia, for 44). They had strongly developed individual identities dating from the colonial period. Subsequent states generally had nothing of the sort; the only exceptions to this rule that come to mind are Texas and perhaps Louisiana, and California to a lesser extent.

Another factor could have been the pre-Civil War division of the nation into two discrete camps, Free and Slave, North and South. The tendency to act in concert according to these categories would have represented a larger identity group, deriving from state loyalty but laid over it.

I'm trying to remember the exact quote but there was a history of the Civil War I read which pointed otu a very interesting and telling bit of language. Prior to the beginnign of the war is was commonplace to say "The United States are..." and afterwards is became "The United States is..." Its the diference between identifying individual states linked together and a single colelctive political entity. While the major issues of the 20th century have helped hone the idea of what it means to be "American" and while Manifest Destiny certainly helped establish a more encompassing "American" viewpoint it was the Civil War which marked the turning point from states to nation.

Certainly this change was a gradual readjustment of national identity; when could it be said to have largely taken place? What factors contributed to the change? I would think that in some sense the Civil War was a factor in this change, but my command of history is hardly adequate to determine.

It was, of course, a gradual process in some ways (you start seeing the formation of a Constructivist style identity in the formation of a distinctly American set of literature and the like), but one of the real major factors in creating a far stronger "national" identity was arguably the Civil War. While it represented a major division in American identity, it also helped consolidate a national identity in the Union states.

Another heavily important one was the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What it basically did was create (or heavily re-inforce, depending on how you interpret Article Six in the 1789 Constitution)a distinct class of American citizenship that was inviolable by state laws.

Other than that, it was slow consolidation by the usual factors: the spread of a distinct American culture, patriotic education (mass education usually figures heavily into nation-building efforts), greater integration and spread of communications, and so forth.

CmdrWilkens wrote:I'm trying to remember the exact quote but there was a history of the Civil War I read which pointed otu a very interesting and telling bit of language. Prior to the beginnign of the war is was commonplace to say "The United States are..." and afterwards is became "The United States is..." Its the diference between identifying individual states linked together and a single colelctive political entity. While the major issues of the 20th century have helped hone the idea of what it means to be "American" and while Manifest Destiny certainly helped establish a more encompassing "American" viewpoint it was the Civil War which marked the turning point from states to nation.

I remember reading that too, somewhere. I think it was Ken Burns on the Civil War, but I'm not sure. When I heard that quote, it struck me as just a little sign that meant such a huge shift in thinking, and it's stuck with me ever since.

I suspect that immigration, such as that which populated the Ohio Territory and the Mid West there beyond, was a major factor in replacing the culture of Statehood.

Does anyone think that divesting the State governments of representation in the Federal Government by the 17th Amendment, furthered the change of culture?

Article I: Section 3: Clause 1 wrote: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Amendment XVII: Clause 1 wrote: The Senate of the United Staets shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

I am of the opinion that this, and the change from State Militia-to-National Guard, were the last major sovereign powers left to the actual States; and that changing those powers was a mere formality in a thoroughly centralized country.

Hawkwings wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:I'm trying to remember the exact quote but there was a history of the Civil War I read which pointed otu a very interesting and telling bit of language. Prior to the beginnign of the war is was commonplace to say "The United States are..." and afterwards is became "The United States is..." Its the diference between identifying individual states linked together and a single colelctive political entity. While the major issues of the 20th century have helped hone the idea of what it means to be "American" and while Manifest Destiny certainly helped establish a more encompassing "American" viewpoint it was the Civil War which marked the turning point from states to nation.

I remember reading that too, somewhere. I think it was Ken Burns on the Civil War, but I'm not sure. When I heard that quote, it struck me as just a little sign that meant such a huge shift in thinking, and it's stuck with me ever since.

It was Allan Nevins in "The War for the Union," (a 4 part series covering 1861-1865 and part of the larger 8 part arc covering 1847-1865). I don't recall which of the actual segments it was but I'm relatively certain it was Volume III (or VII) "The Organized War 1863-1864."

As a total aside I would HIGHLY recommend this series to any serious reader of civil war history. It is possibly the most ocmprehensive study of the politics, eocnomics, and military actions which combined to be the policy of BOTH North and South during the entire struggle.