Nationalism, sectionalism, and localism in American history

Nationalism, Sectionalism, Localism

Sectionalism and Regionalism at the Very Core of American Existence

The United States has recently begun emphasizing a united image with staunch patriotism, and criticizing others for their differing opinions in a height of fear. Yet, social and intellectual divisions through sectionalism have been a part of this nation from the very inception. Beginning with the diversity of regions seen in Colonialism, the nation has demanded sectionalism. This then resulted into the irrevocable differences which were at the very heart of the Civil War.

Localism has it's roots in the very beginning of this Nation. European establishment in the earliest days was from the race for different nations to grab up a piece of the New World. Thus, varying cultures were present in different regional colonies. Therefore, the idea of sectionalism and localism was from the very beginning of the colonial era; "Geography, economic life, and social traditions produced clearly recognizable regional groups such as the New England Colonies, the West Indian Colonies, and the Southern Colonies," (Jensen 3). This regionalism continued to flourish throughout the development of the young nation. Yet, in the late 18th century, the colonies began united against the British flag. In New England, resentment of the British crown depended solely on the idea of it being the other. Thus, this dissention carried on the idea of regionalism so intertwined with the American identity. It was a localized sense of a larger regionalism against a more powerful other. This resentment eventually exploded after British Parliament enacted The Stamp and Tea Acts. Enraged, colonists took up arms against the British and won their Independence with the victory of the American Revolution. With the British defeated, the question the turned to how to govern the newly established nation in its infancy. Regionalism was part of British policy, and when it was disbanded through independence it was "replaced after 1783 by a new and contracted 'American' system of sections," (Jensen 8). Thus American policy reflected this deep sense of sectionalism from the very beginning.

After independence, government was needed. The Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1777, legally dissolved British rule in the colonies and created the United States. In even the earliest notion of government in this country had sectionalism in mind. It was to be a federation of self-governing states to work in together in a flexible system that allowed for the uniqueness of regionalism to flourish. It reads: "Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved," (Jensen 20). Yet it soon became clear that there was a need for some strength in a centralized federal government in terms of foreign relations and trade. Thus, the Articles were revised and the Constitution was written around ten years after the actual Revolution. The Constitution allowed for states to keep elements of their sovereignty, but also included stronger federal power that could be used to help regulate the states and deal with foreign relations and trade. Yet even the creation of the very document that was supposed to unite them, "From the start of the new government under the Constitution, participants in the debates in Congress frequently exhibited a highly sensitive awareness of the existence of sections within the Federal Union," (Jensen 30). There was a fierce division of the state delegates who pitted against the idea of exactly how much power the federal government was to have. The Federalists, spearheaded by Alexander Hamilton, posited the formation of a stronger and more centralized government which could more effectively rule over larger areas and foreign relations. Whereas, the Anti-Federalists, with, believed the exact opposite and preached more strength within states' hands. This then promoted the age old sectionalism that had been a part of the government's framework since the nation's very first inception.