dc.description | Thesis (Ph.D.)--Georgetown University, 2008.; Includes bibliographical
references. Almost without exception Americans agree that we are and ought to be united as a
people under the authority of a common national identity. This identity is almost always held
to be creedal in form, and the contents of this creed are almost always thought to be
contained in the famous preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Though these propositions
are accepted almost without exception as self-evident by Americans, there remains profound -
even irreconcilable - disagreement about the origins, meaning, and implications of the creed
held to define American national identity.; Our debates about the origins, meaning, and
implications of our creedal form of identity obscure the prior questions of where this
peculiar form of identity came from and whether it is desirable or even possible for a polity
characterized by radical cultural and religious diversity, to be united under a singular
national identity. This dissertation frames these fundamental questions about American
identity within the context of a recent reexamination by British historians of the formation
and dissolution of English national identity and the British imperial state. Drawing from this
new British historiography and from a treatment of revolutionary American political discourse,
this dissertation contends that the crisis of American identity is not found in the present
dispute about the content of the American creed. Rather, the true crisis of American identity
is whether we should be organized as a people under a singular national creed that authorizes
the American state or under another form of identity, suggested by Madison (and Tocqueville),
that accommodates a multiplicity and diversity of identities within the differentiated
institutional framework of Madison's novel federal republic. | en |