Mr. Richert and Dr. Wilson,

What sort of “national” identity did the citizens of the United States have in the 18th and 19th centuries? Was it one based on a common English roots and patrimony? Common Christian belief? If they thought of themselves as “Americans,” was this identity based upon being a member of a federal union, through being a citizen of their states? A mediated identity/membership, and not a ‘direct’
one?

I think you already have the answer. If you read Alien Nation by Peter Brimelow you find that the majority of the free people were White, Protestant and of mainly British descent. But I welcome you as an American.

Mr. Richert, I applaud you on the adequate definition:

A people bound together by a common language, culture, genetic endowment, homeland, and history (among other things)

And I appreciate your efforts with this series thusfar.

(Not that my praise is important, but, humbly, I'm moved to give it.)

What sort of "national" identity did the citizens of the United States have in the 18th and 19th centuries? Was it one based on a common English roots and patrimony? Common Christian belief? If they thought of themselves as "Americans," was this identity based upon being a member of a federal union, through being a citizen of their states? A mediated identity/membership, and not a 'direct'
one?

"If there is some sort of tradition, some sort of heritage, some sort of cultural nuance that binds together “Americans” that is not an entirely political and credal construct..."

Though no longer a devotee of the Cult of Science, I still think a sort of quasi-materialism often provides a useful perspective -- instead of trying to pin down any one unifying cultural, or religious, or philosophical element, what about plain old, simple geography as a unifying element?

When I think of "America" quite frankly I don't think of either creed or even cultural heritage -- but a big lump of land stretching from sea to shining sea, occupied by various people, critters, and plants.

I mean, the existence of *that* "America" is a plain, material fact. And it has naught to do with creeds.

One of the few useful graduate English courses I took was on the history of the English language -- covering the conquest of the Britons by the Angles and Saxons and Frisians, then the emergence of Old English, then the arrival of the Normans.

One important point for understanding how these various threads were woven together to form English identity is the recognition that identity is partly a function of physical boundaries.

When we paleos critique propositional nationalists, one of our main attacks is that human peoples are not disembodied intellects, but cultures of embodied creatures of flesh and blood.

Moving on from that, although heritage is obviously of tremendous importance in understanding identity, it might be equally important to remember that the embodied people who participate in a culture have to, well, live *somewhere*.

In the case of English, the seemingly ho-hum, arbitrary geographic boundaries of the British Isles served as a means for weaving into existence the English people.

Probably I'm not expressing my point very well -- which is (I think) less flippant & trite than it probably sounds -- but I'd contend that at the very least American identity has something to do with physical habitation of the American continent.

Of course contra this is the point that if, say, all the French had to evacuate France and migrate to a Moon colony, they'd still be French -- bound together by language, culture, history, etc...

I agree, but I can't help but think the French would have lost something essential in the process. Can't imagine the sidewalk cafés in the Sea of Tranquility could ever be quite the same as those in Paris.

A people who have lost their land are, maybe, like the sociopolitical equivalent of a ghost, haunting the living peoples who do have homeland?

American Indians, pre-20th Century Zionists, modern Palestinians?