• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

America's Founding Myth

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Its biggest failings—arrogance, messianic hubris, a self-regard so bright as to blind one to shortcomings—stem from the Puritan legacy Bancroft was so steeped in. The Puritans thought they had been chosen by God to build a New Zion. Bancroft believed the product of their mission was the United States, and that it was destined to spread its ideals across a continent and the world. This notion of American Exceptionalism—that the U.S. can walk on water when other nations cannot—needs to be jettisoned and replaced by the humility that comes with being mere mortals, able to recognize the failures of our past and the fragility of our present and future.

I want to comment on one part of that piece. The problem I see with exceptionalism is not the idea but the assumption we're currently exceptional based on who we are: hubris.

The basic ideas that Bancroft and Lincoln promoted are good ones but the assumption we are those ideals is false.

So rather than replace our ideals we need to realize how far we are from really living up to our ideals. Getting rid of hubris does not mean jettisoning the ideals.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The Pitfalls and Promise of America's Founding Myths | History | Smithsonian Magazine

A dual account of American founding myths, still embroiled in a Cultural skirmish to this day. Will we unite?

I think of national unity more as a practical matter, although on a larger scale, I think the long-term future might entail an even wider unity - which we might someday have to embrace for equally practical reasons.

Here in the Americas, every nation and national identity which exists was originally conceived and implemented by the various European imperial powers which colonized and ruled over the continent. Most of the nations of the Americas came about through revolution, in which they established themselves as independent republics.

The national identity of the United States seems to rest upon the background of the governments of the 13 British colonies which rebelled and gained their independence. While there were French and Spanish territories on the continent (as they too were vying for primacy in the region), U.S. history is often told from the point of view of the first English settlement of Jamestown in 1607, as well as the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock in 1620. Some areas were already taken, such as New Amsterdam - a Dutch colony, but the British took that in 1664. There were also other European peoples coming to the colonies, as there was a growing German population as well.

But the territory in question was considered British by the colonists living there when the individual colonial governments were established. It wasn't as if each colony was a completely separate country with their own separate language. They all spoke English in one form or another, and they tended to identify England as the "mother country." The basic framework of government and law which the colonial governments worked within had already been established.

The Founders were practical, and they knew full well that the colonies which were to become the United States had to be unified to some degree. For one thing, all of them knew that they'd be vulnerable to European domination if they remained as independent nations. There were certain practical advantages by having all the states under a single government. Also, both North and South agreed that they all wanted more land and territory. Northern politicians had a goal of conquering Canada and taking it from the British, and the Southern politicians wanted Spanish-controlled Florida and Texas - among other places as things came up. Both sides wanted to expand westward as well.

That's why the issue of slavery was one they could compromise on, as both sides could expand westward as long as there was a balance between free states and slave states. The North and South also had some differences of opinion on economic system, with the South favoring a planter's aristocracy founded on producing a few key commodities (such as cotton and tobacco) and using the income to purchase manufactured goods and other goods from other nations. The North favored industrialization and a more diversified economy, which would be more self-sufficient and reduce our dependence on manufactured goods from Europe.

Our attempted conquest of Canada met with disaster, but we were more successful in the South, acquiring Florida, Texas, and what is now the Southwestern United States.

But once we had reached California, we had to stop. We didn't want to make another try for Canada or tangle with the British at all anymore. Once the border with that country was finalized, we were satisfied - even if we didn't get 54°40' or fight. We also didn't attempt any major territorial acquisitions in Latin America, not after the Mexican War. So, there weren't going to be any more compromises, as the Abolitionists and anti-expansionists were growing more and more into a force to be reckoned with. They wanted slavery to end outright, just as it was ending in other countries.

The Civil War forged America's second identity. The American Revolution and the Founders might be America's "Old Testament," while the Civil War and its ideals make up America's "New Testament." Much of what formed the identity and perceptions of "modern America" came about after the Civil War. Slavery was ended, and the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship and equality for all.

Still, America was largely an English-speaking country, with most people being Christian - although not all the same denomination. There was also a large influx of immigrants from non-English-speaking countries in the decades following the Civil War. However, there was likewise a big push towards citizenship, patriotism, and assimilation. People were expected to throw off their loyalties to the "old country" and become fully assimilated, patriotic, loyal American citizens. A lot of people with foreign-sounding names felt compelled to change them, to make them more American. This was also true for African-Americans and Native Americans. I've read some horror stories about the Indian Schools they'd send Native American children to. There were some schools where children could be subject to corporal punishment if they spoke a language other than English.

Henry Ford set up a school for immigrants on how they can learn to become Americans. Assimilation seemed to be the national consensus at the time, even despite the existence of the two disparate views discussed in the article. Theoretically, the idea was that anyone can assimilate, regardless of their race or where they came from. The idea of the "melting pot" is that everyone melts together into a single thing - "from the many, one."

Eventually, though, the idea of assimilation fell out of favor among liberals, and the more conservative racists had rejected it all along. Plus, there were quite a number of people of color who realized they had been robbed of their cultural roots. Forced assimilation itself was considered one of the most horrific atrocities - even beyond capturing and enslaving people. They lost their language, name, nationality, culture - their very identity. To be sure, they most definitely have a righteous grievance, and this is where identity politics comes into play.

But America is still - and always has been - a bundle of compromises. We compromise for the sake of mutual benefit and practical necessity. We can't dissolve as a nation. If anything, we might become an integral part of a larger family of nations - which might have multiple identities and founding myths - but also multiple connections to each other.
 
Top