Posted on 07/07/2017 11:12:54 PM PDT by aquila48
Patrick Buchanan is an informative and interesting writer. On foreign policy, especially, he's long been one of the most reasonable voices among high-level American pundits.
When it comes to cultural matters, however, Buchanan has long held to a peculiar and empirically questionable version of American history in which the United States was once a mono-culture in which everyone was once happily united by "a common religion," a "common language," and a "common culture."
Now, he's at it again with his most recent column in which he correctly points out that the United States is culturally fractured, and speculates as to whether or not Thomas Jefferson's call to "dissolve political bands" in the Declaration of Independence might be sound advice today.
Buchanan is correct in noting that the US is culturally divided today.
But, he appears to have a selective view of history when he contends there was a time when this was not so. If there ever was such a period, it's unclear as to when exactly it was.
Buchanan can't be referring to the mid-19th century when Northern states and Southern states were becoming increasingly hostile toward each other. Many of these differences flared up over slavery, but larger cultural differences were there too, exemplified by a divide between agrarian and industrialized culture, and the hierarchical South versus the more populist North. The result was a civil war that killed more than 2 percent of the population. It was a literal bloodbath.
Was that version of the United States culturally united?
Nor can Buchanan possibly be referring to the US of the so-called Gilded Age. After all, during this period, the US was flooded with immigrants from a wide variety of backgrounds,
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
Buchanan may be interesting or even vaguely entertaining for his opinions.
Buchanan appears to have a public opinion history of anti-Semitism.
That is not very good in my book
"It was outrageous! I demand reparations."
"Let me buy you a shot of Jameson's."
"Ok, that should even things out."
Hello, Mrs. How are you and Don doing?
A slight disagreement that we were never one nation.
When I was in grade school in the 30’s every day began with - ‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all’.
At other times we also sang - ‘My country, ‘tis of Thee, Sweet Land of Liberty Of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, Land of the pilgrims pride, From every mountainside Let Freedom ring’.
It is my opinion that at that time we were ‘One Nation’ or very close to it. And had that Pledge and Song continued to be recited we would be in much better shape today.
I’ve read it, but few Supreme Court Justices have, and even fewer US Senators care what it says.
No. America has never had a mono culture. It was founded specifically to avoid it. One of the primary goals was the enabling of religious conclaves within the country. The Amish, the Mennonites, Catholic focused Virginia. We have always had pockets of their own culture. And that’s just the stuff we did deliberately. Because we’re a post Industrial Revolution country there’s also the city country divide. And then as westward expansion more pockets started forming. The common culture myth of America has been wrong for as long as there’s been America.
Perhaps a better measurement would be within 500miles of where the Pilgrims originated.
Even before the Constitution there were four cultures: the yankees, the southerners, the backwoods scots-irish in the west, and the quakers between the north and the south.
a 500 mile radius from London covers most of France and about half of Germany. So while he’s technically correct his point is false. Yes most early American hailed from that zone, which includes 6 countries (depending on how you chop up the UK) and languages and a lot of different cultures pretty regularly at war with each other.
Do you have any concrete examples of that being true? Not saying it's not, just that I have never seen any examples. Trump is often called an anti-semite and racist by the same people fwiw.
Taxman Bravo Zulu!
Post of the day!
“It is my opinion that at that time we were ‘One Nation’ or very close to it. And had that Pledge and Song continued to be recited we would be in much better shape today.”
I would add after Pledge and Song “and Prayer” continued . . . .”
---
Federalist, no. 39,James Madison, 16 Jan. 1788
On examining the first relation, it appears on one hand that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation; but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act therefore establishing the Constitution, will not be a national but a federal act.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors, the act of the people as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no other wise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States, would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes; or by considering the will of a majority of the States, as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation then the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national Constitution.
---
America was a 'nation' under the auspices of the United States when it turned it's face outward to the world.
INTERNALLY, it was supposed to be an association of States with only limited powers relinquished to serve the purposes of the collective...so no, the contemporary 'one nation' concept didn't come along until the 1850's, when a socialist preacher wrote the Pledge of Allegiance.
We’re OK. Going to a family reunion today up in Kingsport,TN at the home of cousins who have a beautiful place in the mountains. We schmooze, we eat pie, we watch the younger generation of humans and dogs bound around: what could be better?
How’s it goin’ with you?
Our society might be fractured, but we all have a common factor: each of us has a God-given soul. All souls are of equal value to God, regardless of age, talents, or skin color. We need to be careful how we treat each other. God is watching.
I would make the case that many provisions of the U.S. Constitution -- the Bill of Rights in particular -- seem to suggest that a "unified" nation is something of a misnomer as it would apply to the U.S. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and a general "hands-off" approach for the Federal government as envisioned by the country's founders, seriously diminish the opportunities for a common culture.
I also believe that with several notable exceptions this was rarely a serious problem until two trends unfolded: (1) urbanization (which made it more difficult for people to live without interference from others) and (2) the establishment of public education. Item (2) is particularly important because public schools are really the only places where something like the Pledge of Allegiance would ever be a contentious issue. I'd suggest that public education has no place in a free society, period -- even though it has become an accepted feature of a unified country in the modern world.
Sounds like a great time...
All is well here! Busy time of the year for us with good things.
The Constitution was ahead of its time imo.
Hypothetically speaking, if the Founding States had drafted and ratified the Constitution in the Internet age then citizens would probably have better understood that it’s main purpose is to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Instead, most citizens evidently only understand the corrupt media version of the Constitution, the “Hollywood” version based on rumors, gossip, hearsay, and whatever the anti-constitutional republic Progressive Movement want misguided, low-information citizens to think about it.
The bottom line is that smart crooks discovered long ago that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws that steal citizens’ hard-earned money beats robbing banks for a living.
From my perspective which second generation eastern European Prussian/Austrian family settled in Chicago’s southside neighborhood known as Bridgeport. Families were tightly knit structures which came here in the 1870’s. Not just brothers and sisters but cousins relied on each other for support. German was our second language but English was the first. Religion played an important role.
During that period early 19th century. First generation Catholics when settling here were grouped around churches which retained their respective nationalities. Creating parishes which retained and sustained that identity. Bridgeport for example to the uninitiated was never really an “Irish” neighborhood. Although they were first to settle there that myth was created during the lengthy term of the Daley family. There were but two Irish parishes Saint Bridget and St Gabriel in that neighborhood.
The parishes there and the edifices constructed bespoke differently. Saint Anthony and All Saints; Italian, St John of God , St Jerome; Hervat (Croation), Saint George; Lithuanian, Saint Barbara, Our Lady of perpetual Help;
Polish, Immaculate Conception; German along with a number of Lutheran parishes; Gloria Dei, Holy Cross, and Holy Trinity. With the exception of two Lutheran parishes all those parishes maintained primary schools to 8th grade
and the two Polish parishes ran high schools. Until 1960 the third largest school system in the country was the Catholic school system of Chicago
Prior to WWI Services were conducted in those respective languages including German. After the outbreak the use of German was discontinued. But the identity to nationality continued until WWII. It was that war and our focus on it when those subjective nationality differences which I don’t go into here because of time constraints no longer mattered and we became one people, American.
I would have to do a short research to find his antisemitic
remarks over the years. So bear with me..
I heard him many a time his self espousimg anti Semetic remarks on conservative talk radio
>“...abolish papers and language schools that were not English to force integration.”
>When did “we” do that?
Last big push was during WW1 when all the German papers were banned. This ended German as a secondary and sometimes primary language in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_in_the_United_States#Persecution_during_World_War_I
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.