In the wake of my Independence Day revelations, I remembered that in a previous essay,“A Spiritual Foundation for Worldly Challenges,” I mentioned that I would revisit the shift in loyalty among most Americans from their state to the country at large. Following the COVID-19 pandemic and the controversies surrounding the 2020 election, many Americans have educated themselves on the structure of our government and have increasingly turned to their state and local governments for solutions to political and social problems. Therefore, this seems like an appropriate time to examine that dynamic, especially in light of our recent observations about the country’s founding.
Although there was never a single definitive moment when Americans began to think of themselves primarily as Americans rather than Virginians, New Yorkers, South Carolinians, and so forth, one of the first noticeable shifts occurred after the War of 1812. Prior to that period, state loyalties were often stronger than a broader national identity. Many historians argue that the American Civil War largely settled the matter, both politically and psychologically, by reinforcing the permanence of the Union and strengthening the concept of national citizenship. The Reconstruction era that followed resulted in the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, which established national citizenship and extended constitutional protections against actions by state governments. At the same time, the Tenth Amendment preserved substantial powers for the states, creating an ongoing balance between state authority and federal constitutional protections.
In short, the Tenth Amendment protects the principle that states retain substantial authority, while the Fourteenth Amendment establishes that states cannot use that authority to violate constitutional rights. With regard to the political polarization that has occurred in the United States in recent years, many Americans have relied on these amendments to support their respective arguments. What has been particularly interesting to me is that neither side of a political debate limits itself to one level of government or the other. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many Americans sought intervention from the federal government against state or local policies, while others appealed to state governments to resist federal influence, depending on their views of the various public health measures.
As discussed in “July 4th, 2026 – Celebrating 250 Years of Independence and Idealism,” many Americans celebrated a version of the United States that aligned with their own ideals. They were often comfortable with federal actions that challenged state or local authority when those actions supported their beliefs. Many of those same people would likely resist federal involvement in state and local affairs when they disagreed with the outcome. As I observed Independence Day, I also examined the psychological gymnastics accompanying much of this political maneuvering. I found myself wondering whether what appears to be hypocrisy is actually political processing playing out as the Founders intended, or whether it is simply another manifestation of tribalism.
In any case, I found it fascinating to watch the expansion and contraction of identity, especially as my own interests are advanced or hindered by every level of government. Adding to this complexity is my wife’s immigration process and my daughter’s dual citizenship, which introduce an international dimension alongside the local, state, and federal levels. As I watch each level of government operate within its respective sphere, I wonder how the system will ultimately channel these political forces.
Perhaps all of the celebrations on July 4th were accurate to some degree. Clearly, there are issues at the forefront of American society that have polarized the country and tested its institutions. For me, the real question is whether the system will effectively resolve these problems or whether the problems will change the system itself. After all, Reconstruction led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, a significant reform to an already established constitutional framework. But even reforms can represent a concession for some and a denial for others.
Morals notwithstanding, abolition ended slavery and eliminated the legal recognition of property rights in enslaved human beings. For formerly enslaved people, emancipation brought freedom and new opportunities, although substantial social and economic obstacles remained. For plantation owners, abolition fundamentally overturned a system upon which their economic interests had previously depended.
In conclusion, as Americans continue to participate in their political system, how much of their effort will be devoted to reforming that system? How many will advocate a return to its original form? Will the different levels of government erode or reinforce national unity? Will the international community exert greater influence through globalization and technological advancement? These are questions that remain unanswered, yet they may ultimately determine the future relationship between American identity, governance, and national cohesion.
Sources
- National Archives – 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868): https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
- U.S. Constitution Annotated (Congress.gov) – Tenth Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/
- National Park Service – Defining a Nation: The War of 1812 and American Identity: https://www.nps.gov/stsp/learn/historyculture/defining-a-nation.htm
- National Park Service – History & Culture: War of 1812: https://www.nps.gov/stsp/learn/historyculture/index.htm
- National Constitution Center – 14th Amendment: https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv
- National Archives – Documented Rights Exhibit: https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/documented-rights/exhibit/