In Federalist 2, John Jay argues for the ratification of the Constitution on the basis of nationalism: "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people." He did not imagine that the "people" were united under an idea, or around a Constitution.
For Jay and the Federalists, the Americans were "a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs...
"and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other...
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other...
"and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."
This was their case against the Antifederalists. The idea was that, being one people of blood and custom, they must have a strong central government to preserve the people's liberties against the threat of foreign invasion.
So the debate was "whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government,...
"or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government." Clearly with regard to Jay's list of criteria that makes "one united people," the ship has sailed.
We can debate whether Publius was right to suggest that national interests were more vital than local and regional ones. (Well, not really: Even that debate is poisoned by cries of "Neo-Confederate!" and "racist!" whenever the Antifederalist side is defended.)
But anyone looking honestly at the original debate between the Federalists and the Antifederalists would have to admit that neither side would recognize the United States as she currently exists. On what basis, then, does one argue for American nationalism today?
We can hardly say that the "nation" is "descended from the same ancestors"; professes "the same religion"; is "attached to the same principles of government"; or is "very similar in their manners and customs." As for "speaking the same language"—se habla español.
