Forms of Nationalism in Early America – Abbeville Institute

From the 2004 Abbeville Institute Summer School

My first lecture is going to be a bit of a story, but this story is not going to be one where there’s a hero at the center of it. Instead this is gonna be a story about nationalism, what nationalism is and the categories of nationalism that were present during the early American republic. Please bear with me. This is not, I hope, as convoluted as economics, but it just might be, especially since I’m gonna talk about economics throughout the lecture as well. The term “nationalism” did not surface in the English language as a political term until 1844, so when we talk about “nationalism” of the 18th century, we’re imposing a term, a rubric, upon the past which people at the time had no understanding of. They did not think of themselves as nationalists. We can look back and try and claim that they were nationalists, but please bear in mind that we’re already being a little bit anachronistic with this. Before it was used as a political term, “nationalism” was originally a theological term to describe the Great Commission of Christ delivered at the end of the book of Matthew, where Jesus commands His followers to go into the world and preach the Gospel to all nations.[1] Originally nationalism was used to describe the church bringing all nations into itself; it was participating in a process of nationalism where the Gospel was being spread to all nations.


In 1844-1845, the term entered the English language and was considered to be a positive thing. Scholars throughout the 19th century were very, very much in favour of nationalism. They thought nationalism was the way to go, because, as we’ll see here in just a moment, they thought nationalism was the direction all history was headed, and if you were not a nationalist, history would pass you by. That was their thinking up until World War I, which was probably the peak of the optimism associated with nationalism. People assumed both in Europe and in the United States that nationalism was so good that it had been restricted to only the big powers. Germany had nationalism, Italy had nationalism, the United States had nationalism. But what about the Estonians? What about the Bulgarians? What about these little cultural groups in central and eastern Europe? Perhaps they could enjoy the benefits of nationalism as well. You see, by the early 20th century, nationalism was associated with things such as industry, national pride, and economic prosperity. So, if we want to bring industry, pride, economic prosperity, even international influence to the Estonians, Bulgarians, etc., they’ve gotta have nationalism. For this reason, one of the most important planks of Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen-point plan immediately following World War I involved the self-determination of peoples. Now, we might see this as a good thing. Self-determination of peoples? Isn’t that the consent of the governed? Wasn’t that what the whole point of the American Revolution? But that’s not what Woodrow Wilson was aiming at. Woodrow Wilson had an ideological understanding of nationalism. In his view, the self-determination of peoples was a way by which Wilson and other world leaders could bring order to international politics. So, this was not really a beneficial thing. Now, as I said, most intellectuals and scholars thought nationalism was beneficial. Then World War II broke out. Sanity also broke out with regard to nationalism as a result of World War II. People realized nationalism can be destructive. The Germans were doing awful things and using nationalism to justify their actions. So, whether it was the German Holocaust, whether it was the previous Bolshevik Revolution (which in itself was a form of nationalism), or whether it was the Allied bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, all these things were done and justified by nationalism. The world began to reject nationalism as a result, except in two places: Great Britain and the United States, where nationalism continued to be seen in a positive light until about the 1960’s, when the New Left in the United States and Great Britain began endorsing some of the ideas floating out of Germany that maybe nationalism was bad.


So that’s where we are today, where nationalism is seen in a critical light. Very few people are going to publicly stand up in academia and defend nationalism. Some of you have probably run into that in your own brief collegiate lives, when you said something like, “Well, maybe the United States really does possess the best government in the world,” and immediately a frown emanated from the front of the classroom. How dare you insinuate something like that! There is a problem with the main ways in which nationalism is currently being described in academia. And I want you to bear with me on this, because if you can understand this problem, I think you might understand why the critiques being offered today about nationalism really aren’t very satisfying. The problem is these critiques define nationalism as an ideology which honours one’s own ethnic identity or culture above all the rest. It is a belief that one’s own ethnicity is superior to those ethnic groups in the rest of the world. So, they define nationalism racially. Well, there’s a problem with this. You cannot have nationalism unless you have the modern state. In other words, you can’t have nationalism unless you have centralized political power. You don’t have it in any other way. Every nationalist movement, all of them, have one goal: To gain control of the central political power. And once they have that political power, then they begin implementing various other reforms to solidify their nationalist ideals. You can’t have nationalism without politics because it is a political term and a political issue.


One of the other things we need to understand about nationalism is that nationalism is not the same thing as patriotism. In 1945, the eminent British novelist and political essayist, George Orwell penned an important essay entitled Notes on Nationalism. This was written in May of 1945, just as World War II was finally coming to an end. Here is how he defines nationalism and patriotism:


By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’.[1] But secondly *– and this is much more important – I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.


So, patriotism’s not aggressive. Patriotism is natural. Patriotism is something that almost all human beings will exhibit at some point or other, by protecting those things that you love – your family, your home, your property, or by protecting your culture from the assault of other cultures which are antithetical to your own. Nationalism, however, is different. It’s not natural. Nationalism is an ideology, and as an ideology, it is a closed system of thought which attempts to rationalize one’s beliefs at the expense of all other systems. In other words, nationalism is about abstract ideas. Very, very dangerous abstract ideas, because even if those abstract ideas don’t conform to reality, even if they don’t conform to the kind of society in which you presently live, what is an abstract idea? What can you do? You force reality to conform to those ideas. That’s what an ideology does. And in many ways, an ideology is very similar to religion. There’s no toleration of any other viewpoint. There’s no openness, and no matter what reality might look like, you have to conform your life to the ideology, not the traditions, customs, and habits of your surroundings. Before I get into a more substantial definition of what nationalism is, I want to talk to you a little bit about some ground rules that we need to understand in discussing nationalism in early America, and one of those I’ve already given to you. First, “nationalism” is a term that’s absent. It’s not there. As scholars we are imposing a term that occurred afterward on a previous event, and we must be careful as a result. Second, you can have the centralization of political power and not have nationalism. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. Now, you’ve gotta have centralized political power in order to have nationalism, but you can have centralized political power and not have this overarching ideology running the show. Third (and this I think is the most important), you can have a nationalist language and the people who use the language may themselves not be true nationalists. In other words, they may just be using the language because they know everyone else might say: “Oh yeah, nationalism, that’s a great thing. Let’s do it.” Whereas all they are doing is using the ideological language to achieve their own particular interests. So, we have to be careful about this when we read the language of the the founding generation or the, the generation in the early republic or the antebellum generation. You’ve gotta read between the lines. Was Henry Clay a true nationalist? Well, we can say a lot of things about Henry Clay. He was a true gambler. He was a true womanizer. He was a true drunk. But whether or not he was a true nationalist is another question, one with an unclear answer.


What are some characteristics of nationalism that we need to be familiar with? There are, I think, five such characteristics. The first is an unrelenting insistence that unity is better than diversity. Nationalists hold to this as a fundamental truth of their position and they will not tolerate any argument to the contrary. Try it with a nationalist. I do this with my students all the time. If you’re in a conversation with someone who exhibits nationalistic tendencies, ask why “we” have to be unified. Unified how? By whom? To what degree? Does he argue with you? Does he entertain the possibility that what you’re saying might be true? No, his ears grow red and steam begins to emanate from the back of his neck. Nationalists will not accept any challenge to their concept of unity, because unity is their key overarching idea. Now, I’ll explain as we go forward a little bit in the lecture why they hold to unity so tenaciously. The second characteristic is that nationalists believe that the state and civil society must be focused on achieving this unity. That is the overarching concern that everyone has got to have. And again, there is no toleration for any dissent. Think of gas stations in a time of a national emergency. Should gas station operators try to make a profit off of their gas if everyone’s trying to get in their cars and leave the area? No, that’s working against our unity. Should we have any dissent in a time of war? No, that’s working against our unity. Should religious denominations refuse to allow their parishioners to participate in a war? No, you can’t be a Quaker. That that’s against our unity. You’re challenging the nature of our society. Dissent is the enemy of unity.


Thirdly, nationalists hold to a dialectical view of history.[2] They see history as a struggle between at least two diametrically opposite forces, forces of nationalism and forces of provincialism. They also believe that history is inevitable. The march of history is going somewhere, and for a nationalist, it’s going toward ever-increasing unity. There’s no hope. You can’t oppose this. I’m sorry, folks. You shouldn’t have come to the conference, because nothing you learn here will make a difference. We’re moving towards centralization. We’re moving toward nationalism and that’s the end of it, because if you oppose this march of history toward nationalism, you’re gonna be considered one of two things. You’re either provincial, backward, uneducated, perhaps kooky or mentally unstable, or you’re treacherous. You’re betraying your society. You’re betraying your community. You’re betraying your nation. Nationalists view opponents the way my mother viewed mad dogs and drunks – the former is crazy and the latter has a warped character. Opponents are either provincial (meaning there’s something wrong with them), or they’re treacherous and they can’t be trusted. Now, if they’re treacherous, they’ve committed a crime and the power of the state must be used to punish these people for their opposition.


The fourth and final characteristic of nationalist thought is the belief that if we don’t have unity, we will have no civilization. This is where I would like to take just a moment to explain why nationalists believe unity is so important, and this has to do with the way nationalists view society. There are two ways a person can look at society and the dynamics that take place within a society and the different components and units within a society. You can see the components and units of a society naturally coming to the center, you see consolidation as the natural description or pattern of all social activity. We’re all coming together. Human beings are naturally social animals. We want to have companionship. We want to have children. We want to work together either. Or, as in the case of nationalists, you see society always on the verge of dissolution. You see people naturally wanting to flee from each other. In other words, nationalists see people naturally as hermits. If left alone, we won’t work together. If left alone, we won’t love one another. If left alone, we will all go our separate ways and give no attention whatsoever to the needs of our fellow human beings. Well, if that’s the way you see society, you’ve got to have a regulative force to rein in these various components. In other words, for a nationalist, we must have unity because it won’t come about naturally, and if we’re going to have unity, we must have the power of the state to impose it upon society. Society will not naturally order itself. It’s gotta have a government to do that for it.

Continue reading by clicking on the link...read on McDuff.