I nearly titled this post, “Seth’s People of Circles.” His extension of Will’s boxes included adding all kinds of little circles to the red box indicating the many different groups present in the American people.
Religious groups, community organizations, and even some families may earnestly assert a covenant they’ve made and hold above that of our covenant as one American people. Does this suggest we aren’t one American people?
Whether it’s studying Aristotle or Federalist No. 2, there’s always someone who isn’t buying it. Are we really one people? Were we ever one people? Do we have any shared ideas about the common good Perhaps this is all “theoretical fun.”
According to Federalist No. 2, we are one…
“…united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, who, by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence.”
It’s a pleasant thought but it’s no more true now than it was then. Federalist No. 14 adds that we consecrate our union with, “the mingled blood” shed in defense of sacred rights.
It’s hard to imagine this pride in standing together, fighting together, and sometimes dying together doesn’t speak to some idea of a shared past and shared destiny. It’s still fair, however, to ask if that’s enough.
A passage from Sanford Levinson’s Constitutional Faith offers an alternative…
“Indeed, one reason for the emphasis on reverence for the Constitution, whether articulated by Lincoln or by present-day figures, is the realization that there may be no other basis for uniting a nation of so many disparate groups. The Constitutuion thus becomes the only principle of order, for there is no otherwise shared moral or social vision that might bind togehter a nation.”
It’s the Constitution then that carves out and defines the American polity. It’s a statement of our shared vision we recur to throughout time. While the American people grow more and more diverse, the Constitution represents a fixed star to shape our discussions and influence our decisions.
In some ways it’s timeless as it presents our past understanding to our current circumstances and demands we interpret those commitments for our future well-being. In other respects the Constitution is a testimony to the time we’ve invested through events like the Civil War or the trail of case law protecting the minority groups from the majority. It communicates who we once were, who we are, and who we’re committed to becoming in the future.
If we return to John Jay’s Federalist No. 2, it’s through the Constitution that we have a shared language and mutual understanding of the principles of government. We have the same civic heritage with established manners and customs. Indeed these commitments are often referred to as our civic religion.
Does this then render us as one American people?
stepwinder
Thanks for the thought-provoking post, which I will modify for use in some of my classes this Fall.
A question to ever be asked, and in doing so come closer to the answer of “yes”. Reminds me of graphing functions back in Calculus days.
I think graphing functions take us back to our discussion of what is a Federalist .
Thinking about this question, I’ve thought it’s really a matter of how we define ONE. Whether we expect a homogeneous answer or can accept a heterogeneous one. So, now we’re talking about dynamics in mathematical equations and the definition of words.
It always comes back to how we understand the words we use, doesn’t it?
In the vein of “words create worlds,” I fall back on the beneficently-intended lie that Will et al. described at Montpelier. Oneness is a goal more than it is or has ever been a reality, much less an absolute. Other, older nations may be defined by their homogeneity (frequently more mythical than than actual), but the United States of America is not, never has been, never will be 100% “one” in the traditional, nationalistic sense.
Consider Strasbourg, France. German name for a French city–what does that tell us? It isn’t a new place; it has been inhabited (and battled over) by both ethnic Frenchmen and ethnic Germans for centuries. The “Swiss” don’t even pretend to be “one” nation–they may be politically and economically united, but not linguistically, and John Calvin notwithstanding, there have continually been Catholics there. Rome? Both ancient and modern Rome have been consistently multicultural (Romulus & Remus didn’t exactly hail from the Italian peninsula, and Paul of Tarsus–Asia Minor–was a religious & cultural Jew and a Roman citizen simultaneously!). We have to go to more geographically isolated places like Japan or Korea, which have historically taken steps to maintain homogeneity for Jay’s description to be more accurate.
Maybe we should ask “Are we one enough? Are we willing to be one where it counts?” If we are (or have been or will be) one, it’s because we CHOOSE to be.
To look again at the words:
“…united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, who, by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence.”
It rang true with its time, yet positively resounds today. Why? Well, contrary to what racists and dividers say, technology and progress illimuninate our oneness. In reverse order, let us count the ways:
1) More and more of our people have access to the same rights
2) Our armed forces played a significant role in integration
3) Media has proved a unifying force in shared culture, with the internet providing unheard of communication (Hey, BC, Ala, and Cali!)
4) The Constitution provides our framework (and more!), with our shared experience functioning as a binding religion and language
5) Finally, science, agreeing with the Old Testament, does point to the the fact that we share common parents [This goes far beyond Oprah's ancestry
or O'Cheney cousins to original African roots (Lucy/ Eve--who-you-will)]
I think that Puck’s words touch on something very key. We weren’t raised by wolves or picked by destiny. We CHOSE to be a people. And WE did that: not a magic hand from the sky, an eye on a pyramid, or gnomes busied writing while folks were napping.
And we will continue to keep choosing: including, learning, growing.
The Constitution is not only a system of ideas, it is a matrix which generates ideals.