I Pledge Allegiance: Flag, Republic, Nation

We give our heads and hearts to God and our country; 

one country, one language, one flag! — 

Pledge as written by Capt. George T Balch

(used in various places 1887-1923)

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, 

one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. — 

Pledge as written by Francis Bellamy in 1892

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, 

and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation 

{under God}, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —

Form recognized by the US Congress in 1942, 

with “under God” added Flag Day 1954

            The last time I was in the United Kingdom was shortly after Queen Elizabeth II’s Golden Jubilee, and there were still many flags flying; interestingly, and relevant here, only one of the flags I saw was the Union Jackof the UK — at a touristy location —  while the rest were the national flags of England (the cross of St. George), Scotland (the cross of St. Andrew), and Wales (the Welsh Red Dragon). The United Kingdom is one country with at least three nations, united (more or less) under the monarchy and the Parliament at Westminster. Kingdom and country are one thing; nation is another.

            The current US Pledge of Allegiance substitutes the Flag for the Monarch as a focus for allegiance, and conflates — in a colloquially correct and politically useful way — the American Republic and the United States as “one Nation under God.” 

            Especially with US President Donald J. Trump identifying himself (correctly) as a nationalist, and with nationalism on the rise in the US and elsewhere, the convenient conflation of Republic and Nation in the Pledge is not holding and perhaps should not.

            So, is, or are, The United States of America basically, even essentially, the American Republic or the American Nation (under God)?

            Citing a 1991 book by Anthony D. Smith, the Wikipedia entry has it that “A nationis a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. […] It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.”^[3]And when it possesses and can hold its own territory, and establishes its own government, we have a nation-state.Stricter definitions by nationalists have usually required also one origin, one history, one religion — and, at least since the great Eurasian migrations of ancient and medieval times, one land and one descent: nationhood rooted “in blood and soil.”

            “One Ruler, One Law; One Faith” for one old formula that could work for a multinational empire or country — and tossing in Racism and one form of Romanticism one could get «Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer»: “One People, One Realm, One Leader.” And those “People” — the Folk — would be a subgroup of a Race, the Nation in Adolf Hitler’s phrase “Nation and Race” (Mein Kampfvol. 1, ch. 11).

            That’s one extreme, and not the idea of Nation meant, say, in the name of the oldest US magazine, the Leftist, The Nation. 

            The Right-wing extreme is, though, what’s meant by Right-wing extremists who talk of the US as part of “the Aryan Nation,” and it is a strong possibility for those who speak of the US as “a White, Christian Nation,” with “White” and “Christian” excluding Jews and other swarthy Caucasians, and “Christian” kind of iffy for Catholics. 

            Is the United States, essentially— of its essence — an English-speaking, Anglo-Saxon, White Christian (Patriarchal) Nation, with a territory? In that case we — or they(I’d be excluded) — in that case Americans, realAmericans would want a strong state to protect the Nation and Motherland, but the nature of that state is negotiable, with the traditional upshot a Leader of some sort, perhaps elected, perhaps hereditary, perhaps just, “Let the strongest rule.” 

            So it is for a minority of Americans, but in part or parts this is also the case for a fair number: those for whom America is a Nation of some sort and under God, being, clearly, a substantial number. 

            Or is America a Nation, but one where the Republic part isn’t negotiable but essential to our culture?

            Or is America essentially a Republic, like the old Roman Republic, but one that hadn’t fallen under an Emperor and, eventually, Emperors who made a state religion of the Christian Church — but instead an alternative Rome that had continued as a multi-national, religiously diverse polity, based in law and (the modern contribution) developed a written Constitution? And evolved out of a good deal of the monstrousness that was even the Roman Republic at its best. Okay: let’s imagine an evolution to us, with the American flag as a symbol and focus for allegiance, maybe just a tiny Roman-ish/American eagle at the top. 

            It makes a difference how we define ourselves.

            If the United States are/is essentially a Nation with a territory, a central task would be preserving the purity of the Nation. Not just regulating immigration: the Roman experience warns against weakness, division, and incompetence allowing an influx of whole tribes. No, traditional nationalism has a traditional hang-up with by-God purity, and it doesn’t take much penetration of foreign elements to impurify the body of the Nation. 

            If we’re essentially a Nation under a Leader, there is much to be said for the primacy of the Leader’s protecting the purity of the Nation with a beautiful if largely symbolic wall, backed by the force necessary to keep out even small groups of what must be seen as invaders. If the Leader can fulfill that most basic duty and then go on to embody and channel and to a some extent fulfill the will of the Nation, then it doesn’t matter much if the Leader himself is flawed or performs acts that in ordinary people would be criminal. The Leader of the Nation is the perfect democrat, bypassing elitist bureaucracies and institutions to perform the will of the demos: the true People, the ultimate Sovereign, and the figurative King that can do no wrong.

            If we’re essentially a Republic, especially one with liberal democratic aspirations and dedication to the rule of law, then things are different. In that case, “No one is above the law”; the President is the commander-in-chief only of the military, not of the country s/he serves; a Leader of the Folk is a danger; if you’re born here, you’re a citizen of the Republic; and for all the usefulness of “civic/civil religion,” our literal allegiance is to the Constitution and Republic, not to the symbol of the flag. 

            My oath was to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and I swore my loyalty to the Republic. There are a lot of “republicans” like that out there. We need to talk with each other and with the Nationalists; and this force of “republicans” must prepare, if necessary, to resist takeover of our country by Nationalists.

Pledging Allegiance (Flag Debates Again)

As long as we're re-cycling arguments on patriotism, treason, the National Anthem, and such, here's me briefly on The Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag from April of 2004. Hey, if we're going to keep recycling arguments on symbols, I think I should get to recycle my short contributions. Anyway,  I take very seriously my oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States (and will repeat that below) but have some qualms about the patriotic exercise of pledging allegiance to a flag.


* First off, allegiance is pledged to the flag, with "to the Republic" almost an afterthought: following an "and" and never mentioned as a variant title for the exercise (we don't talk about "Pledging Allegiance to the Republic").
* The Republic in The Pledge is defined as "one nation," as opposed to a confederation of states undoubtedly, but also as a conflation of nation and republic. The U.S. isn't a nation in the same sense that Japan is a nation, or in the sense of "nations" in the joke in the song from HMS Pinafore: "But, in spite of all temptations / To belong to other nations / He remains an Englishman."
In everyday usage "nation" is still often expanded to "Christian nation," and at one time that was "White, Christian nation" (and Catholics, in such usages, weren't Christians, and Jews weren't White). And the nominally-Christian racists had and have a point: traditional nations were supposed to be united by "blood" and faith or "blood and soil" (Blut und Boden). I am a citizen of and have sworn my loyalty to the American Republic established by the U.S. Constitution; I don't belong to some hypothetical American nation.

* As the U.S. prison population continues to rise, with many inmates incarcerated for minor drug crimes — and many of them young African-American males — the line on "liberty and justice for all" becomes increasingly problematic.  In the War on Drugs and the War on Crime, Americans may prefer security for themselves over liberty for other Americans, often justly, but often not.
* Between "liberty for all" on U.S. territory and a sense of security for "natural born" U.S. citizens, most Americans would probably go for security.

If we want a patriotic exercise, maybe reciting this: "I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Republic established thereby, and will strive to achieve domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for us today and for future generations."

American History 101: Blood Money (USA as Well as CSA)

            "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography," Ambrose Bierce is said to have said, and we might add nowadays that multiple murders, shootings, and figurative battles over emotion-laden symbols is God's way of teaching Americans a bit of history.

            Among the more useful lessons that can be taught may come from the backlash against removing Confederate (CSA) flags and memorials through a more legitimate variation on the argument tu quoque — "You're one too!" — that points out the evils committed under the flag of the United States (USA), and notes how slavery flourished because of complacency, complicity, collusion, and corruption extending far beyond the South.*

            We talk today of "blood diamonds": diamonds from combat zones in Africa whose purchase helps brutal warlords in their massacres. Well, in England and much of the United States one could talk of "blood sugar" in England and the northern American colonies and not refer to people's glucose levels but to the brutal exploitation of slave labor in the Caribbean plantation system that supplied the sugar. Similarly for tobacco in what became the United States, and then, finally, cotton.

            It was indirect, but elegant people putting sugar in their coffee and tea and learning to "drink" tobacco — that was the early expression — were complicit in the slave trade (plus other exploitation for the coffee and tea). Less culpable were more ordinary folk later producing cotton fabric and being able to buy cheap textiles: people complicit in "blood cotton."

            Far more directly sin-laden was the wealth generated by trade by northern colonies and then under the United States converting blood sugar and molasses to rum to slaves in the Triangular Trade: "a pattern of colonial commerce in which slaves were bought on the African Gold Coast with New England rum and then traded in the West Indies for sugar or molasses, which was brought back to New England to be manufactured into rum." Although some of the rum went to other purposes: as Benjamin Franklin said, in his Autobiography of the local Indian tribes, with only a bit of hyperbole: "[…] if it be the design of Providence to extirpate these savages in order to make room for cultivators of the earth, it seems not improbable that rum may be the appointed means. It has already annihilated all the tribes who formerly inhabited the sea-coast" (1771-90, Part III, p. 57).

            Cotton is a useful product, and sugar is a "food-drug," not just a drug. With tobacco and rum, however, colonial America and later the United States were engaging in trade in psychoactive addictive drugs produced by slaves, including the hard drug ethyl alcohol that from colonial times to the present has been devastating to many Native Americans.

            Et bloody cetera.

            So we do indeed need to look back at the sins of the CSA, but to do so without hypocrisy, all White Americans (and some of the Black economic elite) need to acknowledge how much of our present wealth is blood money, the product of good old USA crimes against humanity.

____________________________
          * "Under the flag of the United States" could get literal. In Smuggler Nation, Peter Andreas points out that during the period in the 19th c. in which slavery was widespread but the slave trade illegal, US flagged vessels were the ships of choice for what had become illicit shipping of slaves. The US government resisted British attempts to stop and search even blatant slavers on the grounds that freedom from search on the high seas was more important than ending the slave trade.