American nationalism

Flag of the United States

Part of a series on
Nationalism
File:Flag-map of the world.svg Political and cultural expressions of National identity
History Types
Core concepts Nation Nation-state National identity Self-determination Patriotism Sovereignty
Varieties Civic nationalism Ethnic nationalism Exclusionary nationalism Religious nationalism Cultural nationalism Pan-nationalism Anti-nationalism
Regional movements American nationalism Arab nationalism Chinese nationalism Hindu nationalism Japanese nationalism Russian nationalism Ukrainian nationalism
Related topics Populism Patriot Act National sovereignty Globalization Identity politics Diaspora
Category
v t e

American nationalism is the civic identity and shared sense of purpose that unites the people of the United States. It is grounded in the belief that the nation represents a unique experiment in liberty, constitutional order, and republican self-government. From its founding, the American political community was defined not by ancestry or ethnicity, but by allegiance to shared principles of individual rights, limited constitutional government, and equality under law. These ideals, expressed in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the United States Constitution, created a republic in which sovereignty resides with the people rather than with rulers or inherited elites.^[1][2]

As a cultural and historical phenomenon, American nationalism has evolved through periods of unity, conflict, and renewal, and developed as a civic expression of republican virtue and love of country rather than as an instrument of power or conquest. The Founders viewed patriotism not as blind loyalty to government but as gratitude for liberty and the moral obligation to defend it. Love of country in this sense reflected devotion to the republic itself—to its laws, institutions, and principles of self-rule. This affection was inseparable from duty, embodying the belief that freedom requires both virtue and vigilance.^[3][4]

During the American Revolution, it emerged as a unifying ideology of self-determination, contrasting British monarchy with republican liberty. The early republic strengthened this identity through civic participation, westward expansion, and the integration of diverse immigrant populations who were bound together by a shared political creed rather than ancestral origin. In this respect, American nationalism differs fundamentally from ethnic or exclusionary forms found elsewhere, emphasizing the universality of freedom rather than the primacy of race, language, or religion.^[4]

Throughout American history, nationalism has evolved alongside the nation’s political and cultural development. It inspired independence from Britain, fostered civic unity during the early republic, and gave moral energy to reform movements such as abolitionism, women's suffrage, and civil rights. It also motivated the defense of freedom in global conflicts and shaped the country’s role as a defender of democratic and republican ideals abroad. In the modern era, American nationalism continues to find expression in public life, civic participation, and shared national symbols, reaffirming the belief that liberty and self-government, not ideology or ancestry, define what it means to be American.^[5][6][7]

History[edit | edit source]

The development of American nationalism reflects the nation’s gradual transition from colonial dependence to civic independence and national unity. Its earliest roots were laid in the political and religious self-awareness of the Thirteen Colonies, where local autonomy and collective identity evolved long before independence. The experience of shared struggle, first in the colonial wars and later in the resistance to British imperial policy, fostered a sense of destiny that transcended provincial loyalties. By the mid-eighteenth century, the language of liberty, covenant, and natural rights had begun to unite settlers of different origins under a growing concept of “Americans.”^[8][9]

During the American Revolution, nationalism matured into an ideological creed that fused republican self-government with collective purpose. Figures such as Thomas Paine and George Washington advanced the notion that the new nation was bound together not by ancestry but by shared conviction in liberty and equality. The Revolution’s success institutionalized those ideals through the United States Constitution, transforming a loose confederation of states into a coherent political identity. By linking citizenship to civic participation and moral duty, the founders established a form of nationalism that was both aspirational and inclusive; anchored in principle rather than lineage.^[10][11][12]

Colonial[edit | edit source]

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence depicts the Committee of Five presenting its draft to the Second Continental Congress, symbolizing the transition from colonial loyalty to national unity.^[13]

The origins of American nationalism can be traced to the political, religious, and cultural development of the Thirteen Colonies between the seventeenth and mid-eighteenth centuries. Although established under the authority of the British Crown, the colonies evolved distinct forms of local governance and communal identity that gradually nurtured a sense of autonomy. The combination of geographical separation from Europe, intercolonial trade, and shared threats from imperial rivals fostered habits of self-reliance and cooperation long before independence was contemplated.^[8]

By the early eighteenth century, colonists increasingly saw themselves as participants in a moral and political enterprise distinct from the monarchical order of Britain. The First Great Awakening, which swept through the colonies beginning in the 1730s, reinforced this sense of shared destiny. It cut across denominational boundaries and emphasized individual conscience, equality before God, and resistance to corrupt authority; principles that later translated naturally into political arguments for self-government.^[14] At the same time, the growth of colonial assemblies and print culture encouraged debate about rights and representation, producing a generation accustomed to governing its own affairs and expressing grievances in the language of liberty.^[9]

Competition among imperial powers further bound the colonies together. During the French and Indian War (1754–1763), militias from New England to the Carolinas fought side by side under a common cause, discovering the practical benefits of unity. The Albany Plan of Union, proposed in 1754, represented an early expression of intercolonial solidarity. Although never enacted, it introduced the idea of a federated identity and would later serve as a reference point for the framers of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.^[15]

By the mid-eighteenth century, this convergence of religious revivalism, representative politics, and collective defense had given rise to a nascent sense of “Americans” as a distinct people. Their allegiance to Britain remained strong, yet their self-perception increasingly rested on local liberty and shared purpose rather than imperial subordination. What began as cultural confidence and institutional independence would, within a generation, mature into an articulated nationalism grounded in the ideals of liberty and self-rule.^[16]

American Revolution[edit | edit source]

Montage of Revolutionary war paintings.
(LtoTop rt) The Siege of Yorktown (1840); (bottom rt) Commander Pearson's HMS Serapis escorted by the HMS Countess of Scarborough when attacked by John Paul Jones' squadron in the Battle of Flamborough Head

The American Revolution transformed the colonial sense of shared grievance into a unifying national cause. By the mid-1770s, Americans across social classes and regional boundaries increasingly viewed the defense of liberty as a collective moral duty rather than a provincial concern. Parliament’s assertion of authority through measures such as the Stamp Act, Townshend Acts, and Coercive Acts provoked not merely opposition to taxation but a rejection of imperial subordination itself. Colonial assemblies, pamphleteers, and civic groups articulated a new vision of citizenship grounded in natural rights and the consent of the governed—a language that gave moral legitimacy to resistance and defined the ideological birth of American nationalism.^{[8][15]: 105–110}

The Revolution’s leaders consciously framed their struggle in universal terms. Thomas Paine’s 1776 pamphlet Common Sense cast independence as both a political necessity and a moral imperative, asserting that a free people must govern themselves. Circulated widely in towns, taverns, and churches, it united disparate colonies under the conviction that liberty was not an English privilege but a human right. The Second Continental Congress soon adopted this principle formally in the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and approved on July 4, 1776. The document’s assertion that “all men are created equal” provided the philosophical foundation for a civic nationalism rooted in shared ideals rather than ancestry or class.^{[17][9][13]: 142–150}

The war that followed deepened this emerging national consciousness. Soldiers and civilians alike came to see the conflict as a defense not merely of territory but of principle. Local loyalties gave way to broader allegiance as disparate militias were organized under the Continental Army led by George Washington, whose leadership and personal restraint became enduring symbols of republican virtue. Festivals, sermons, and printed celebrations reinforced a collective identity that transcended colonial divisions. Historian David Waldstreicher observes that these public rituals, such as flag raisings, parades, and anniversaries of independence, served as “rites of assent,” binding ordinary citizens to the moral and civic project of the new nation.^[11]

Victory in 1783 secured independence and affirmed the legitimacy of the revolutionary experiment, but it also exposed the challenge of sustaining unity among sovereign states. The Articles of Confederation proved too weak to embody the principles for which the war had been fought, prompting a new generation of nationalists, including Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, to draft the United States Constitution in 1787. That document transformed the loose alliance into a durable federation based on the rule of law and mutual obligation, establishing the framework for a national identity grounded in civic participation and shared sovereignty. In that achievement lay the enduring legacy of the Revolution: the creation of a nation defined not by heritage but by its political ideals.^[18][9][10]

Westward Expansion[edit | edit source]

Following the adoption of the United States Constitution, the early republic entered a period of extraordinary territorial growth and national consolidation. The vision of the young nation as a “continental republic” inspired the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and subsequent westward settlement across the Appalachians. Expansion was celebrated as both destiny and duty—a conviction later encapsulated in the phrase Manifest Destiny, and it reinforced the sense that the United States carried a providential mission to extend liberty and self-government across the continent.^[19][20]

Nationalism during this era was characterized by a tension between its inclusive civic ideals and the realities of rapid territorial expansion. The new western territories became a proving ground for democratic participation and economic opportunity, drawing settlers of diverse European origins into a common political culture. Newspapers, steamboats, and expanding postal routes tied frontier communities to eastern cities, strengthening the perception of a single national destiny. Yet the same process also exposed divisions over slavery, indigenous displacement, and regional power; contradictions that tested the moral coherence of the national ideal.^[21][22]

By the mid-nineteenth century, civic nationalism had become both a unifying ideal and a moral test. Political leaders increasingly invoked the principles of the Declaration of Independence as the ethical foundation of the nation’s identity. Among them, Abraham Lincoln gave the clearest expression of this creed. In an 1858 address to Chicago voters, he described the Declaration as a moral “electric cord” linking generations of Americans, native-born and immigrant alike, through their shared devotion to liberty and equality:

Lincoln’s words captured the enduring essence of American nationalism as a moral and civic bond—open to all who embraced its founding principles. His interpretation redefined nationality as an act of shared belief rather than shared blood, affirming that the unity of the United States rested on ideals capable of transcending ancestry, region, and origin. That civic understanding would later serve as the moral foundation of his leadership during the American Civil War.^[24][25]

American Civil War[edit | edit source]

The American Civil War (1861–1865) marked the greatest crisis in the history of American nationalism. The rapid territorial growth of the early republic had expanded both liberty and contradiction: while many Americans celebrated the spread of democratic institutions, others saw in it the extension of human bondage. The moral and constitutional tensions between freedom and slavery, left unresolved since the founding, deepened with each new state admitted to the Union. As northern reformers invoked the Declaration of Independence as a living covenant of equality, southern leaders defended slavery as a regional right essential to their social order. The result was a profound division over whether national identity was defined by universal ideals or by local sovereignty.^[25][22]Template:Rp=678–684</ref>

In the South, the ideology of states’ rights and slavery was championed primarily by the Democratic Party, whose leaders viewed federal restriction of slavery as an existential threat to their social and economic order. By contrast, the newly formed Republican Party of the North was rooted in the Free Soil and abolitionist movements, and advanced a vision of the United States as a single moral and political republic, where liberty was national rather than sectional.^[26][25]

For southern intellectuals, nationalism came to mean independence from a Union they viewed as hostile to their institutions. The formation of the Confederate States of America in 1861 reflected a regional variant of nationalism, rooted not in civic equality but in the defense of a hierarchical agrarian order. Confederate rhetoric drew upon the same revolutionary language of self-determination once used against Britain, claiming a right to secede as an expression of liberty. Yet, as historian Paul Quigley notes, this “Southern nationalism” inverted the moral logic of the Revolution by seeking freedom for one class through the enslavement of another.^[27][28]

For President Abraham Lincoln and his northern contemporaries, the conflict was fundamentally a struggle to preserve the moral and constitutional unity of the Republic. Lincoln’s wartime addresses redefined American nationalism in universal terms, presenting the Union not as a compact among states but as the embodiment of democratic principle itself. His 1863 Gettysburg Address distilled this ideal with rare clarity: the nation, he declared, was “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” In linking the survival of the Union to the endurance of democracy, Lincoln elevated American nationalism from a political sentiment to a moral commitment; the idea that the United States existed to vindicate self-government for all humanity.^{[24]: 23–25}

The Union victory in 1865 resolved the territorial question of sovereignty but left deep social and racial divisions that would challenge national unity for generations. The abolition of slavery through the Thirteenth Amendment and the establishment of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment redefined the American nation as a community of equal citizens before the law. These transformations broadened the meaning of nationalism from loyalty to a government to allegiance to a moral ideal. The sacrifices of the war gave new depth to the concept of national identity, binding it to the principles of liberty, equality, and constitutional justice that had animated the Revolution and that now stood reaffirmed in the crucible of civil conflict.^[26][25][24]

Postwar National Identity and Expansion[edit | edit source]

The North’s triumph in the Civil War marked a decisive transformation in American national identity. Reconstruction established the legal foundations of civic equality through the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, codifying a national definition of citizenship that extended to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. For the first time, American nationality was defined not by region or race but by allegiance to constitutional principle. Everyone born within U.S. jurisdiction was recognized as a citizen, regardless of ancestry or social status; a doctrine later reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).^[31]

Amid rapid industrial growth, immigration reshaped the social fabric of the nation. Millions arrived from Europe, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean, drawn by expanding labor markets and the promise of citizenship. Naturalization procedures remained straightforward, usually a five-year residency followed by an oath of allegiance, reflecting a civic understanding of nationhood based on participation and consent.^[32]

At the same time, national policy reflected enduring racial hierarchies. Immigration from Asia was severely restricted by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Gentlemen’s Agreement with Japan in 1907, culminating in the Immigration Act of 1924 which virtually barred Asian immigration altogether. Despite these exclusions, children born on U.S. soil to Asian parents were citizens by constitutional right, and discriminatory laws were gradually repealed during and after World War II—the Chinese exclusion laws in the 1940s, and the broader racial quotas with the Immigration Act of 1965.^[33]

The postwar era also witnessed the outward projection of American nationalism through territorial and economic expansion. The annexation of Hawaii in 1898, followed by U.S. acquisitions in the Caribbean and Pacific, signaled the emergence of a confident industrial power asserting both its democratic ideals and its global ambitions.^[34][35][36]

World Wars[edit | edit source]

The twentieth century redefined American nationalism on a global scale. By the eve of the First World War, the United States had become an industrial and agricultural powerhouse, united by a growing belief that its political values carried universal significance. The war in Europe provoked a sharp debate between isolationist traditions and a new sense of national responsibility in world affairs. When the U.S. entered the conflict in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson cast the war effort as a moral crusade “to make the world safe for democracy.” His rhetoric transformed American nationalism from a doctrine of continental unity into one of international mission, linking the nation’s self-image to the defense of liberty abroad.^[37][38]

Mobilization for war produced an unprecedented display of civic participation. Nearly four million Americans served in uniform, while millions more supported the war through labor, rationing, and volunteer service. Government appeals to patriotism and public duty unified a diverse population, and symbols such as the American flag became central emblems of loyalty. Historian David Kennedy notes that “the language of democracy, sacrifice, and progress” during the war years forged a shared moral vocabulary that endured long after the armistice.^[39][40]

Two decades later, World War II elevated nationalism to a unifying civic faith. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States mobilized more than sixteen million soldiers and redirected its entire industrial capacity toward victory. The war effort transcended class and region, promoting a sense of collective sacrifice that blurred traditional divisions. Rationing, war bonds, and industrial labor symbolized shared commitment to the national cause. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s articulation of the Four Freedoms—of speech, of worship, from want, and from fear—linked American nationalism to universal human rights, redefining patriotism as both defense of the homeland and affirmation of global liberty.^[41][42]

The end of the Second World War confirmed the United States as a global superpower. Its victory, economic dominance, and leadership in creating institutions such as the United Nations and the Bretton Woods system reflected an enduring belief that the nation’s ideals could shape the postwar world order. American nationalism thus entered a new phase—confident, outward-looking, and increasingly intertwined with the defense of democracy worldwide.^[43][44]

Cold War[edit | edit source]

Following World War II and beginning with the Cold War, the United States emerged as a world superpower and abandoned its traditional policy of isolationism in favor of interventionism. With this, nationalism took on a new form in the US, as Americans began to view their country as a world police with the ultimate goal of eradicating communism from the world. This nationalist fervor was fueled by US involvement in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Bay of Pigs Invasion, and many other conflicts.^[45][46]

Modern era[edit | edit source]

The September 11 attacks of 2001 led to a wave of nationalist expression in the United States. The start of the war on terror was accompanied by a rise in military enlistment that included not only lower-income Americans, but also middle-class and upper-class citizens.^[47] This nationalism continued long into the War in Afghanistan and Iraq War.^[48]

The postwar era also witnessed the outward projection of American nationalism through territorial and economic expansion. Unlike European colonial powers, whose empires were often based on coercive rule and exploitation, the United States expanded primarily through annexation, treaty, and invitation. The incorporation of territories such as Hawaii in 1898 and subsequent U.S. acquisitions in the Caribbean and Pacific reflected not a colonial system but a belief widely held at the time, that extending American governance and citizenship could advance liberty and self-government. This expansion signaled the emergence of a confident industrial republic asserting both its democratic ideals and its growing global influence.^[49][50][51]

Contemporary United States[edit | edit source]

Nationalism and Americanism remain topics in the modern United States. Political scientist Paul McCartney, for instance, argues that as a nation defined by a creed and sense of mission Americans tend to equate their interests with those of humanity, which in turn informs their global posture.^[52] In certain cases, it may be considered a form of ethnocentrism and American exceptionalism.

Due to the distinctive circumstances involved throughout history in American politics, its nationalism has developed in regards to both loyalty to a set of liberal, universal political ideals and a perceived accountability to propagate those principles globally. Acknowledging the conception of the United States as accountable for spreading liberal change and promoting democracy throughout the world's politics and governance has defined practically all of American foreign policy. Therefore, democracy promotion is not just another measure of foreign policy, but it is rather the fundamental characteristic of their national identity and political determination.^[53]

Love of country and civic virtue[edit | edit source]

In contemporary discourse, American nationalism continues to draw moral strength from the older republican ideal of civic virtue and love of country. Patriotism in the American sense has never meant uncritical obedience to government; rather, it reflects devotion to the Republic and gratitude for liberty. This affection for country expresses allegiance to a shared moral order; liberty protected by law and sustained by the character of its citizens. George Washington and John Adams both warned that the Republic could survive only if citizens remained virtuous and morally self-restrained.^[54]

From the Revolution to the modern era, love of country has been invoked as a moral unifier in times of conflict and change. Abraham Lincoln appealed to “the better angels of our nature” as the moral foundation of Union; in the 20th century, presidents such as Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan echoed this theme, portraying patriotism as a civic virtue inseparable from faith in America’s founding ideals of liberty, justice, and duty to preserve the Republic.^[55][56]

This enduring ideal situates American nationalism as both rational and moral; a blend of civic reason and heartfelt gratitude. Love of country, in this sense, represents the emotional heart of republican self-government: the belief that freedom is preserved not by compulsion but by the voluntary virtue and devotion of free citizens.^[57][58]

Varieties of American nationalism[edit | edit source]

In a paper in the American Sociological Review, "Varieties of American Popular Nationalism", sociologists Bart Bonikowski and Paul DiMaggio report on research findings supporting the existence of at least four kinds of American nationalists, including, groups which range from the smallest to the largest: (1) the disengaged, (2) creedal or civic nationalists, (3) ardent nationalists, and (4) restrictive nationalists.^[59]

Bonikowski and Dimaggio's analysis of these four groups found that ardent nationalists made up about 24% of their study, and they comprised the largest of the two groups which Bonikowski and Dimaggio consider "extreme". Members of this group closely identified with the United States, were very proud of their country, and strongly associated themselves with factors of national hubris. They felt that a "true American" must speak English, and live in the U.S. for most of his or her life. Fewer, but nonetheless 75%, believe that a "true American" must be a Christian and 86% believe a "true American" must be born in the country. Further, ardent nationalists believed that Jews, Muslims, agnostics and naturalized citizens were something less than truly American. The second class which Bonikowski and DiMaggio considered "extreme" was the smallest of the four classes, because its members made up 17% of their respondents. The disengaged showed low levels of pride in the institutions of government and they did not fully identify themselves with the United States. Their lack of pride extended to American democracy, American history, the political equality in the U.S., and the country's political influence in the world. This group was the least nationalistic of all of the four groups which they identified.^[59]

The two remaining classes were less homogeneous in their responses than the ardent nationalists and disengaged were. Restrictive nationalists had low levels of pride in America and its institutions, but they defined a "true American" in ways that were markedly "exclusionary". This group was the largest of the four, because its members made up 38% of the study's respondents. While their levels of national identification and pride were moderate, they espoused beliefs which caused them to hold restrictive definitions of who "true Americans" were, for instance, their definitions excluded non-Christians."

The final group to be identified were creedal nationalists (also known as civic nationalists), whose members made up 22% of the study's respondents who were studied. This group believed in liberal values, was proud of the United States, and its members held the fewest restrictions on who could be considered a true American. They closely identified with their country, which they felt "very close" to, and were proud of its achievements. Bonikowski and Dimaggio dubbed the group "creedal" because their beliefs most closely approximated the precepts of what is widely considered the American creed.^[59]

As part of their findings, the authors report that the connection between big money, religious belief, and national identity is a significant one. The belief that being a Christian is an important part of what it means to be a "true American" is the most significant factor which separates the creedal nationalists and the disengaged from the restrictive and ardent nationalists. They also determined that their groupings cut across partisan boundaries, and they also help to explain what they perceive is the recent success of populist, nativist and racist rhetoric in American politics.^[59]

According to a 2021 American Journal of Sociology study by Bart Bonikowski, Yuval Feinstein, and Sean Bock, competing understandings of American nationhood had emerged in the United States in the last two decades. They find, "nationalism has become sorted by party, as Republican identifiers have come to define America in more exclusionary and critical terms and Democrats have increasingly endorsed inclusive and positive conceptions of nationhood."^[61]

Cultural nationalism[edit | edit source]

Cultural nationalism has historically been an integral element of American nationalism. Such cultural nationalists form group allegiances based on a common cultural heritage rather than race or political party. This heritage may include culture (Culture of the United States), language (English language), religion (Christianity), history (History of the United States), ideology (Democracy), and symbols (National symbols of the United States). Cultural nationalism is distinct from ethnic nationalism, in which race and ethnicity are emphasized over culture and language.^[62]

Nationalism gained a cultural character beginning in the late 18th century. Multiple historical ideas have shaped modern cultural nationalism in the US, including the concept of the nation state, the fusion of nationalism and religion into religious nationalism, and identity politics.^[62]

Civic nationalism[edit | edit source]

American nationalism sometimes takes the form of Civic nationalism, a liberal form of nationalism based on values such as freedom, equality, and individual rights. Civic nationalists view nationhood as a political identity. They argue that a civic nation is defined by liberal democratic principles and loyalty. Membership is open to every citizen, regardless of culture, ethnicity, or language, as long as they believe in these values.^[63][64]

Trumpism[edit | edit source]

President Donald Trump was described as a nationalist^[65] a term he embraced.^[66] Several officials within his administration, including former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon,^[67] Senior Advisor to the President Stephen Miller,^[67] Director of the National Trade Council Peter Navarro,^[68] former Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka,^[67] Special Assistant to the President Julia Hahn,^[69] former Deputy Assistant to the President for Strategic Communications Michael Anton,^[70] Secretary of State Mike Pompeo,^[71] Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross,^[72] Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer,^[73] former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell,^[74] former National Security Advisor John R. Bolton^[75] and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn^[76] were described as representing a "nationalist wing" within the federal government.^[77]

In a February 2017 article in The Atlantic, journalist Uri Friedman described "populist economic nationalist" as a new nationalist movement "modeled on the 'populism' of the 19th-century U.S. President Andrew Jackson" which was introduced in Trump's remarks to the Republican National Convention in a speech written by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Miller had adopted Senator Jeff Sessions' form of "nation-state populism" while working as his aide.^[78] By September 2017, The Washington Post journalist Greg Sargent observed that "Trump's nationalism" as "defined" by Bannon, Breitbart, Miller and "the rest of the 'populist economic nationalist' contingent around Trump" was beginning to have wavering support among Trump voters.^[79] Some Republican members of Congress were also described as nationalists during the Trump era, such as Representative Steve King,^[80] Representative Matt Gaetz,^[81] Senator Tom Cotton^[82] and Senator Josh Hawley.^[83]

During the Trump era, commonly identified American nationalist political commentators included Ann Coulter,^[84] Michelle Malkin,^[85] Lou Dobbs,^[86] Alex Jones,^[87] Charlie Kirk,^[88] Laura Ingraham,^[84] Michael Savage,^[89] Tucker Carlson,^[90] and Mike Cernovich.^[91]

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

Notes

Further reading[edit | edit source]

• Arieli, Yehoshua (1964) Individualism and Nationalism in American Ideology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
• Birkin, Carol (2017) A Sovereign People: The Crises of the 1790s and the Birth of American Nationalism. Basic Books, ISBN 978-0-465-06088-7.
• Faust, Drew G. (1988) The Creation of Confederate Nationalism: Ideology and Identity in the Civil War South. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press.
• Kramer, Lloyd S. (2011) Nationalism in Europe and America: Politics, Cultures, and Identities Since 1775. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9780807872000
• Lawson, Melinda (2002) Patriot Fires: Forging a New American Nationalism in the Civil War North. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
• Li, Qiong, and Marilynn Brewer (2004) "What Does It Mean to Be an American? Patriotism, Nationalism, and American Identity After September 11." Political Psychology. v.25 n.5 pp. 727–39.
• Motyl, Alexander J. (2001). Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume II. Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-227230-1.
• Maguire, Susan E. (2016) "Brother Jonathan and John Bull build a nation: the transactional nature of American nationalism in the early nineteenth century." National Identities v.18 n.2 pp. 179–98.
• Mitchell, Lincoln A. (2016) The Democracy Promotion Paradox. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. ISBN 9780815727026
• Quigley, Paul (2012) Shifting Grounds: Nationalism and the American South, 1848-1865. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199735488
• Schildkraut, Deborah J. 2014. "Boundaries of American Identity: Evolving Understandings of “Us”." Annual Review of Political Science
• Staff (December 13, 2016) "How similar is America in 2016 to Germany in 1933". Boston Public Radio
• Staff (December 20, 2005). "French anti-Americanism: Spot the difference". The Economist.
• Trautsch, Jasper M. (September 2016) "The origins and nature of American nationalism," National Identities v.18 n.3 pp. 289–312.
• Trautsch, Jasper M. (2018) The Genesis of America; U.S. Foreign Policy and the Formation of National Identity, 1793 - 1815. Cambridge
• Waldstreicher, David (1997) In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes: The Making of American Nationalism, 1776–1820. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press
• Zelinsky, Wilbur (1988) Nation into State: The Shifting Symbolic Foundations of American Nationalism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

External links[edit | edit source]