Brion McClanahan – The United States Is Not A NationPage 1 of 3

The United States Is Not a Nation!

Posted on 07 December 2009 by Timothy Baldwinhttp://libertydefenseleague.com/liberty/2009/12/07/the-united-states-is-not-a-nation/ by

Brion McClanahan

, Ph.D.November 26, 2009I have often required my students on the first day or two of class to use the Oxford EnglishDictionary and define the following words: nation and state. Most do not follow my directionsand submit a modern Webster’s or online distortion of the word, and those who use theOxford often fail to provide the etymology of either word. I can’t fault them for that, becausethey have probably been taught since first grade in the public “school” system to submit thefirst definition they find. Thus, the common results of the activity are similar to the following:Nation – noun: a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that issufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. (fromdictionary.com)State – noun: the territory, or one of the territories, of a government. (from dictionary.com)How profound, statist… and completely absurd! If both are true, than the United Statesshould simply be the “United State.” A state is simply a “territory… of a government”? A nation is simply a large body of people that occupy a territory? That would be news to thefounding generation. Of course, a careful reading of the history of both words could correctthis mess and place the Union of the States within its proper historical context.The word “nation” found its way into the English language around the 14th century. Underthe old definition,

nation

was a group of people who shared a similar racial, cultural, orreligious background that often included elements such as a common language

State

was a sovereign political entity, not simply a “territory… of a government.”

By viewing theUnited States through that lens it becomes clear that modern definitions of nation and stateare the product of centralization and the mischaracterization of the federal government as a“national government.”Certainly no one in the founding generation would have argued that Virginia andMassachusetts possessed the same cultural heritage. Virginia, with its strong Cavaliertradition, and Massachusetts, with its Puritan or roundhead foundations, were clearly at oddsduring the seventeenth century and beyond. The two colonies may have been populated by white, English Christians and who shared a common language, “English,” but as DavidHackett Fischer beautifully explained in his “

Albion’s Seed

,” the two cultures werediametrically opposed in almost every conceivable way. From dress to food to speech, VirginiaCavaliers and Massachusetts Yankees were in many ways two separate nations, not simply separate cultures. The “shining city upon a hill” Puritans and their decedents never letSoutherners forget their differences, nor did Southerners want to be lumped together withself-righteous Yankees. William Berkeley, the dominant figure in Virginia during theseventeenth century, despised Puritans and fought against them in the English Civil War.Later American sectionalism was little more than an explicit recognition of cultural

Brion McClanahan – The United States Is Not A NationPage 2 of 3

differences and the existence of separate nations in North America dating to the early days of English settlement. Adding to this American cultural cornucopia were the Celts, the Quakers, American Indiantribes, and African slaves, groups that had interesting and culturally significant contributionsto the fabric of their respective regions as well. Thus, America in the colonial period was“multicultural” in a way that extended beyond race or religion. Western civilization and theEnglish tradition dominated, but separate nations blotted the North American landscape.One of the most respected American historians on slavery, Eugene Genovese, wrote this about American culture in his Roll, Jordan, Roll:

“Blacks and whites in America may be viewed asone nation or two, or as a nation within a nation, but their common history guaranteesthat, one way or another, they are both American.”

This statement accentuates the point thatthe phrase “American nation” is a rhetorical fabrication of the last 150 years of Americanhistory.This was not lost on the founding generation. John Adams once wrote that,

“I expressly say that Congress is not a representative body but a diplomatic body, a collection of ambassadors from thirteen sovereign States….”

Each state had its own political and culturallife and each was “sovereign.” Robert Yates, writing as Brutus in 1787, observed that “In arepublic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this not bethe case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other.” If applied to the United States, Yatesconcluded that:

The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the differentparts of the union are very variant, and their interests of consequence, diverse.Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; andtheir sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of theseveral states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, alegislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care of decision, but would be composed of suchheterogeneous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.

Of course, there were “nationalists” in the early federal period, but even they oftenunderstood that if the United States contained several nations rather than one, it would be better to separate than to consolidate. Gouverneur Morris, one of the most important“nationalists” (and womanizers) of this era, made the following statement during thePhiladelphia Convention of 1787,

“But, to come more to the point – either this distinction [between the Northernand Southern States] is fictitious or real; if fictitious, let it be dismissed, and letus proceed with due confidence. If it be real, instead of attempting to blendincompatible things, let us at once take a friendly leave of each other. There can be no end of demands for security, if every particular interest is to be entitled toit.”