less conscious and public identity, which reflects theirnhistory and values. This is the implicit basis for their internalncohesion and their mobilized interaction with other nations.nThe experiences attendant upon interaction, friendly ornunfriendly, with other peoples will play back and become anformative influence upon the sense of identity itself)nOne of the central features of American nationalism isnthat it has not only constantly evolved, but has undergonensea changes at least three times, though Americans arenhardly aware of it, one indication of which is that very fewncould today sympathize with Taylor’s viewpoint. WhennPresident Ronald Reagan celebrated America as a “Citynupon a Hill,” a beacon to all mankind, he paid tribute tonwhat he believes is a long-continued tradition of Americannprosperity, egalitarianism, and good works, without recognizingnthat the modern America he celebrates is somethingnquite foreign and in many respects inimical to what thenPuritan settlers of Massachusetts Bay in the 17th centurynhad in mind when they expressed their aspirations tonbecome a “City upoti a Hill.” This is perhaps as it shouldnbe, since nationalism is a mythology, a form of consciousness,nthe success of which is measured not by its historicalnaccuracy but by its power to bind a given community into ancommon sense of interest and identity.nYet if our goal is understanding the nature of Americannnationalism, and its relationship to the nationalisms of othernparts of the world, it is necessary to take a historical view asnwell as describe the current consciousness. One thing isnclear: American nationalism has always had about it, in itsnarticulated aspects and compared to the nationalisms ofnEurope, something of the nature of a doctrine, a set ofnbeliefs, as opposed to the allegiances of blood, dynasty,nlanguage, history, religion, and territory that form the corenof European senses of national identity. Which is notnnecessarily to say that American nationalism has alwaysnlacked an ethnic and religious core or always been understoodnin terms of a universal to be applied to all mankind.nThe 13 British colonies of North America that united tonfight a successful war of independence and to found anconstitutional federal union were quite diverse in theirnhistories, economies, interests, and culture. What theynshared in common was a British Protestant origin, a strongnsense of the value of those inherited parts of Britishnconstitutional liberty and self-government that were mostnuseful and pertinent to them, and the experience of thenRevolution and Constitution-making itselfnA sense of American nationalism was not absent from thenWar of Independence, but it was relatively muted, especiallynin comparison to the nationalist outbreaks in Europe thatnbegan a few decades later. (Dick Taylor’s German interlocutornwas more than likely an offspring of the Revolutions ofn1848.) And while Americans sometimes appealed to thenopinion of mankind and thought of themselves as annexample to peoples everywhere oppressed by arbitraryngovernments, they were not really universalists or egalitarians.nTheir attitude was more that of a younger son declaringnhis equality with his older brothers than of a revolutionaryneager to impart “democracy” — a bad word to them —nthroughout the universe.nNeither their geographical situation — their isolationnfrom the Old World and the prospect of a nearly emptyncontinent to be setfled — nor their inclination suggested tonthem any mission to expand democratic revolution to thenworid. They were, indeed, highly content with their ownnprinciples, prospects, and nature. It did not occur to themnthat they were Citizens of the World. Their British Protestantnculture was neariy unremarked upon, not because it wasnrejected but because it was so taken for granted.nWhat held the American states together in a loosenpolitical unity was not nationalism but a constitutionalnsettlement embodying federal republican principles. Onenof the implicit aspects of this setflement was that it was tonpreserve an already existent identity. (Americans still swearnallegiance to the Constitution, not to the nation or to anynexplicit set of political dogmas.) This historical truth is littlenunderstood today. In fact official American belief regards thenDeclaration of Independence as the beginning of an endlessnprocess of active movement toward an ever-more egalitariannand universalist society. This is because of the interventionnbetween us and the Founding Fathers of that sea change innthe thinking of men that is summed up in the term “thenFrench Revolution.”nWhile Americans before the Civil War were often quitentruculent in asserting their rights and honor over againstnother countries, and in upholding the superiority of theirnrepublican, constitutional liberties to arbitrary governmentsnelsewhere, they were not nationalists in the sense that wasnlater to be understood. There were in antebellum Americanno loyalty oaths or pledges of allegiance to the flag or thennation. Freeborn American citizens would have considerednsuch to be an insult to their patriotism as well as an invasionnof the rights of their states.nIt is true that during the early 19th century rhetoricalnemphasis was increasingly laid on an idea of nationalism.nNew Englanders, who had always had the most organizednsense of community and mission among Americans, strove,nwith a good deal of success, to promote New England idealsnof the future of America, as those ideals had been transformednby the devolution of Puritanism into a progressorientedneconomic system and by Transcendentalism, anCerman stepchild of the French Revolution.nAmericans of other sorts were no less patriotic, and in factnwere far more typical, but the New Englanders were thenmore articulate. The outcome of the Civil War completed anprocess by which the New England community, in annidealized form, became the prototype of Americanism, bothnat home and abroad. (For example, the first Americanndictionary, produced by Noah Webster of Connecticut, wasnnot an American dictionary at all, but a New Englandndictionary, establishing spellings and pronunciations thatnwere not at all typically American but which were proselytizednas standards by subsequent generations of schoolmarms.)nUntil the Civil War, nationalism was a sentiment withnmany different acceptable connotations. It was not anninstrumental concept, except occasionally as an assertionnagainst foreign interference. It involved no particular imperativesnor organized missions, except as regarded the emptynlands on the borders of the Union which might becomenfuture states. And even so, the westward movement wasnlargely a matter of individual initiative, not national self-nnnNOVEMBER 1990/17n