I would agree with virtually all of this. I would just slightly disagree with your treatment of the Irish. The Americans of Irish descent in 1790 who made up 6% of the population are markedly different from those Irishmen who arrived post-1840. Of those of Irish descent in 1790, the vast majority were Protestant and most were of Anglo-Irish or non-Irish Gaelic descent. They assimilated very well into Anglo-American culture as they were almost indistinguishable from English and other Protestant British descended Americans. However, the Irish who arrived en masse, post-1840 were predominantly of Gaelic descent and were Catholic. Most settled in urban centers such as New York, Boston, and Chicago. They formed ethnic enclaves and did not assimilate. They continued to identify as "Irish-American" and even openly resented and hated the native Old Stock Americans. They created many of the corrupt Democrat political machines such as Tammany Hall. Some even wanted to create almost exclusively Irish cities, such as in Boston in the late 19th century. In Boston's case, they wanted a "Dublin on the coast of North America;" they wanted a city with very few WASPs. I would argue that this group has not fully assimilated to this day. It is not that they could not, but simply that they haven't. They continue to identify as "Irish-Americans" and hate WASPs.
I agree, and well said. I considered making this distinction between the Irish settlers, but for time and simplicity's sake I left it out. Maybe I should have given it a brief paragraph. My Irish ancestors were the Protestant, late 17th and early 18th century vintage.
The Irish are a complicated people, but I admire them.
I think Ireland is a fascinating and beautiful country. I am of partial Scots-Irish/Ulster-Scots Protestant descent. I resent the Anglo hate from the Irish, and the WASP and Old Stock American hate from the "Irish-Americans." Anglo hate is a sure sign of anti-Americanism.
I agree. As Americans, we no longer have the luxury of inter-ethnic resentments and squabbling, especially between such close relations as the British Isles. Our enemies, foreign and domestic, have been actively ethnically replacing us for decades. We must unite or perish.
We have been identified accurately as a race by our enemies. I agree. We must accurately identify ourselves in return and unite against the common foe. Quite simple really
American is not an ethnicity, just as British isn't. Those are nationalities with internal ethnos. A Cajun is not the same as a Yankee. Both are American though.
This concept is not difficult to understand. This accurately identifies us and can help us unite better than the blanket ethnos of American. Again, I have little in common with a Cajun, for example.
Scottish Highlanders or the Gaelic speaking Scots have been here almost from the beginning. They are an integral part of this nation and integrated well. America is indeed Anglo-Celtic. However, many Irish-Catholics who arrived post-1840 have not assimilated and lived in their own ethnic enclaves for generations.
Many Midwestern Germans did the same and honestly still do. I grew up around them. They aren't the same ethnos as me. They view America very differently from the two of us.
I guess this is less of an original European ethnos issue and more of an issue between Heritage Americans and more recent colonists. Hmmm.. 🤔
The era in which the various northwestern Europeans settled can indicate or differentiate their personalities and motivations, even within very specific geographical origins, as @GCH said above.
An ethnicity is like a family, with shared ancestry, language, traditions, and history, yet still with variety and differences. The farther out in time and space you move, the "family" becomes an "extended" family. And after even more time and space, the family (ethnic group) diverges into new ones.
What matters now, is we ethnically circle the wagons to fight back against our displacement by very foreign and very hostile non family members of the Heritage American family. Unite or perish.
I don't think Irish Catholics should be given flak, since they are Northwestern Europeans just like their Protestant British counterparts. And they are related to the English, Scots, and Welsh people. In Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, I don't recall hearing any contempt for Irish culture. Nor resentment for English culture.
How can you claim to discover a land where InDios, known as Latinos have lived Centuries before your Immigrant european ancestors Invaded our Continent.
You, your community Must Cease & Desists this/these Intentional Lie(s).
No. The founding fathers were very clear in the preamble to the Constitution: "Ourselves and our Posterity."
That's it. You don't get to put words into their mouths or make things up. Heritage Americans are those who are descended from the people who fought in the American Revolution *and that is it.*
Nobody who came here afterward, nobody who was a loyalist.
You're wrong. Colonists freely mixed with all races upon arrival from the french to the indigenous populations. They rejected the British ethos of a dominating church/state [Anglican] religion just as the Irish fought to hold onto their Catholic identity in Ireland. The over-reaching imperial rule of England was rejected soundly by the Quakers, the Puritans, the Catholics and other sects. The Mormons went on to create their wholely unique American Christianity.
Crenshaw identifies the English language as the first inheritance, arguing it provided a unified means of communication essential for American civilization. He warns of its decline through increased bilingualism and advocates making English the official language.
What a crock. English language was adopted world-wide as the language of business and commerce after WWII, when the country was technologically and financially at its peak, and held the world together with it's neo-liberal policies that let the whole world recover for the destruction brought on by Nazi scum and fascist regimes of Mussolini and Franco. English is bastard language cobbled together from the Romance languages and the Germanic. It's an ever-changing and growing language that readily adapts different words from different cultures into it. As the spelling and linguistic rules change, we see how incredibly different our writings are even from out colonial predecessors.
Christianity constitutes the second inheritance, with Crenshaw challenging claims of colonial religious decline by citing evidence that 56-80% of founding-era Americans were "churched," with 98.1% of congregations being Protestant. He argues America is "normatively Christian" at its core.
Nonsense. As the country interacted with the French to the North, the indigenous populations, and the Spanish to the South. Colonists began to interact with many new norms, mores, and religions. All were affected. Don't forget the Mormons rejected all and went their own way, and the Quakers who hold onto their beliefs rejecting modernization so even "heritage Americans" are considered "The English."
The third and fourth inheritances—self-government and Christian government—reflect America's tradition of local political autonomy informed by explicit Christian principles. Crenshaw contends that colonial and founding documents demonstrate intentional Christian governance.
Funny, for a government considered by its current residents to be a "Christian government" it sure adapted a lot from the Iroquois Confederacy, heathens all. Whatabout Founding Father John Adams who unequivocally wrote: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." A Christian nation seems to be a very modern idea, popularized by some Protestant sects interested in breaking America's societal norms.
Liberty, the fifth inheritance, is defined not merely as freedom from constraints but as "spiritual freedom" to choose moral good within community contexts. Crenshaw rejects modern individualism as false freedom.
Liberty is political term derived from a democracy movement that began in France and came to England. It means the liberty to be able to exercise your political rights against the overweening tyranny of a monarch. Which lead to the creation in European countries in documents like the British Magna Carta which established that including kings (and subsequently presidents) are subject to the laws of the nation and have certain inalienable rights.
The sixth inheritance, equality under law, derives from America's Christian-English legal tradition, establishing principles like presumption of innocence and trial by jury.
See previous question.
Grade-school civics is not the place to decide how the current US population of 350 million should be living. The United State's beauty, strength, vibrancy comes from it's modern population not from 18th Century throwbacks. Embrace the 21st Century, it's the only way to thrive and survive. Realize that the combined population of North and South America is just over 1 Billion people. There are 4.8 Billion people in Asia. 1.5 Billion people in Africa. All those other billions are working, studying, building, innovating, and cooperating. We're in competition, we will not conquer. Our strength and power comes from ability to change and adapt, understand and assimilate, accept and respect. Think about it.
Literally the most basic facts about history. Do you want sources for the landing of the Mayflower? How about for the date of the Declaration of Independence?
I hope that by spreading the awareness and history of Heritage Americans, the Hyphenated Americans will connect the dots of our ancestors and our heritage with the nation that Hyphenated Americans enjoy today and their ancestors sought and were granted. Our enemies seek to turn Hyphenated Americans into Anti Americans.
Ideally that is what would happen. However, what I often see from even many ethnic Americans on the right is a rejection of the Old Stock and Anglo-American heritage of our country. They want to redefine America around themselves. To them, America is a "pan-European" nation. They may even claim that "the Italians built this country" or "the Irish-Catholics built this country."
I concur with your observation. However, I think most people go along with whomever or whatever is most compelling, even if it's wrong and destructive. But through passion, focus, and work we can become a powerful minority that influences the majority. Which ethnic group has been the most influential over the last 60+ years? They're a small fraction of US citizens. So imagine what we, the rightful heirs to America, can accomplish.
That is a good point. We need to be an influential minority. I just lament the fact that we Old Stock Americans, while not an insignificant portion of the population, no longer make up the vast majority of our own nation.
1640s? That's pretty late. My 11th great-grandfather William Bradford was a signatory to the Mayflower Compact (1620) and was the second governor of the Plymouth Colony starting in 1621. Then a bunch of ancestors throughout the 1620s and 1630s.
Your misplaced arrogance and hostility is counterproductive.
I'm heritage American and I do not think it's an ethnicity. It is a nationality. I am genetically and culturally different to many Americans, even other heritage Americans. Scots forefather from the Hebrides came here and fought in the revolution.
Thanks for your comments. And salute to your Scot forefather for fighting in the Revolutionary War!
Ethnicity, unlike nationality (a legal or political affiliation with a state), encompasses shared cultural traits, language, religion, and historical experiences that can unify a group despite genetic variation. Through ethnogenesis, these early Americans—primarily of English and Northern European descent—developed a cohesive identity rooted in Protestant values, English language, and civic traditions like representative governance and common law, which became foundational to U.S. culture.
While genetic diversity has grown, this shared cultural heritage, forged over generations, supports the idea of an American ethnicity distinct from mere nationality, even as it continues to evolve with later influences.
Even though I still disagree, and have touched on the topic of American ethno-genesis before, I'll just say that the article was good and it's nice seeing folks like us speaking up. I just think the idea of an American ethnicity is rather new, due to my own studies into our history and the attitudes of most of the colonies and the early states, leading up to the Civil War. Honestly, I wonder if the interstates and highways leading kids to colleges far from home broke those old ethnic enclaves. They were once mighty, and remnants exist still.
I'm not the same as a Yankee or Cajun. Different ethnos, same nationality. America is similar to Britain in that regard, which makes sense since this is an Anglo nation by and large.
How you know who is a Heritage American today? My first known ancestor, an Englishman, came here in 1650 from Essex. His son bought slaves shipped from Dahomey in Africa in 1680, one of whom was my (incredible number of greats) grandmother. Before there even WAS a United States of America. A couple of Scotsmen and one Irishman got into my bloodline too, right up until the Civil War. It went all black and a little indigenous after that. Since 1650 every single one of my grandparents, and my parents, are all buried right here in America. Ancestors that fought in every war the country ever had including the very first. Im as American as American can get. Yet, youd exclude me and include some Italian or Jew who just happened to marry a Scots-Irish woman in the 1920s! Barely have any roots here, never shed any blood here, no ancestors in the ground here, yet they get the "heritage." Sorry. This test doesnt fly. Bottom line for me ... you gotta have an ancestor from the British Isles at the founding for sure since the mixed up Romanized Anglo-Saxon Viking Normandic Celts we call the English ... they founded the place, I agree with that. But the main thing is having deep roots in America. Not some other place. You include, for example, a Hungarian because no Hungarians ever contributed anything to the American culture. Not its religion, language and way of life (England) , not its music (Africa), or its food (Indigenous), or really anything other than coming here and joining up what was already built by others. However, I agree, if you're mostly some kinda Slav or a Jew or some other ethnic white , and you maybe can dig back and find one from 1830 in your line and thats as far back as you can go ... I don't see how such a person could get the "Heritage" distinction.
But since were all basically mutts now...are there any pure (by pure I mean you've hired a family research genealogist to look into it) Heritage Englishman left in America?
How can you claim to discover a land where InDios, known as Latinos have lived Centuries before your Immigrant european ancestors Invaded our Continent.
I would say we run it like this, northwestern European and in the USA already = heritage stock. Other European ethnicities that have been here for four or more generations have likely interbred with heritage Americans, they get to join the club. All other Europeans should be regarded as "integrating" or "not integrating".
In no way, shape, or form should we regard non-European races as either heritage or ally Americans. The only exemptions to this being our territories (I will include Hawaii in this category) and certain Hispanics (subject to genetic testing, many of them are nearly full-blooded Europeans). The territories should be essentially regarded as separate nations under the American aegis, they should be governed and administered differently as a result.
Do you have any thoughts on people with mixed heritage? I can trace my lineage back to mayflower voyagers, but only through one grandparent . The others all immigrated from Europe , mostly after the civil war.
My people were here before yours (1620). Your arrogance and antagonism sows division and discredits you as emotional rather than scholarly or brotherly.
The founding of the U.S. colonies and the eventual establishment of the United States were significantly influenced by religious motivations, though the degree and nature of religious influence varied across time and region.
Founding of the Colonies
- Puritan New England (1620s–1630s): The Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies were founded by English Puritans seeking religious freedom from the Church of England’s perceived corruption. The Pilgrims (Plymouth, 1620) and Puritans (Massachusetts Bay, 1630) aimed to create a "city upon a hill," a model Christian society based on strict Calvinist principles. Their governance, laws (e.g., Blue Laws), and social structures emphasized religious conformity, with church attendance mandatory and dissenters like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson exiled for challenging orthodoxy.
- Rhode Island (1636): Founded by Roger Williams, a Puritan dissenter, Rhode Island was established on principles of religious liberty, advocating for the separation of church and state. It became a haven for Baptists, Quakers, and others persecuted elsewhere.
- Maryland (1634): Founded by Lord Baltimore as a refuge for English Catholics facing discrimination, Maryland promoted religious tolerance for Christians (though not always consistently applied). The 1649 Act of Toleration granted freedom of worship to Christians, a rare early example of religious pluralism.
- Pennsylvania (1681): William Penn, a Quaker, founded Pennsylvania as a "Holy Experiment" to provide a safe haven for Quakers and other religious groups. It emphasized religious tolerance, pacifism, and fair treatment of Native Americans, attracting diverse settlers like Mennonites and Lutherans.
- Other Colonies: While Virginia (1607) and the Carolinas were more economically driven (tobacco, trade), religion still shaped their societies. The Church of England (Anglican) was established in Virginia, and religious rhetoric often justified colonization as a mission to spread Christianity. Even in these colonies, religious dissenters like Baptists faced persecution.
Founding of the United States
- Religious Context in the Revolution (1770s–1780s): By the time of the American Revolution, religious fervor, particularly among Protestant denominations, played a role in mobilizing support for independence. The Great Awakening (1730s–1740s), a widespread religious revival, fostered a sense of shared identity and questioned traditional authority, indirectly fueling revolutionary sentiment. Many colonists viewed their cause as divinely sanctioned, with sermons framing the fight against British tyranny as a moral and religious duty.
- Deism and Enlightenment Influence: Many Founding Fathers (e.g., Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison) were influenced by Enlightenment ideals and Deism, emphasizing reason and a non-interventionist God. While they respected religion’s societal role, they prioritized individual liberty and religious freedom over establishing a state religion.
- Constitutional Framework (1787–1789): The U.S. Constitution reflects a balance between religious heritage and Enlightenment principles. It avoids establishing a national religion (Article VI bans religious tests for office; First Amendment ensures free exercise and prohibits establishment of religion). This was driven by practical concerns—diverse colonies with competing denominations (Congregationalists, Anglicans, Baptists, Quakers) made a unified state religion untenable—as well as philosophical commitments to liberty.
- Religious Rhetoric in Founding Documents: While the Constitution is secular, the Declaration of Independence (1776) invokes religious language, referencing “Nature’s God,” the “Creator,” and “divine Providence.” This reflects a broad, inclusive of religious sentiment appealing to both Christians and Deists, framing inalienable rights as divinely endowed.
- Continued Influence: Post-independence, religion remained central to American identity. Many states initially maintained established churches (e.g., Massachusetts until 1833), but the First Amendment’s principles gradually led to disestablishment. The Second Great Awakening in the early 1800s further diversified American religion, reinforcing its cultural significance.
While many Heritage Americans today are secular, The establishment of the U.S. colonies and the later founding of the United States were deeply shaped by religious motivations, with the extent and type of religious influence differing by time and place. And Heritage Americans today may be secular, but it doesn't change the past.
So “americans” began with the Founders of the 1770s with their clever Enlightenment ideas? and not the New Englanders who landed in Mass (who were, btw, mostly from which area of England?) or the people who populated the Southern colonies who were from Where?
I actually agree with that thesis. the New Englanders are welcome to the american brand; they own it. But as we know they were specifically Puritan. The other colonies, which may or may have been settled by people from different parts of the British Isles, and so who may or may not have shared a culture with the New Englanders, may (or may not) have had similar religious impulses.
I would agree with virtually all of this. I would just slightly disagree with your treatment of the Irish. The Americans of Irish descent in 1790 who made up 6% of the population are markedly different from those Irishmen who arrived post-1840. Of those of Irish descent in 1790, the vast majority were Protestant and most were of Anglo-Irish or non-Irish Gaelic descent. They assimilated very well into Anglo-American culture as they were almost indistinguishable from English and other Protestant British descended Americans. However, the Irish who arrived en masse, post-1840 were predominantly of Gaelic descent and were Catholic. Most settled in urban centers such as New York, Boston, and Chicago. They formed ethnic enclaves and did not assimilate. They continued to identify as "Irish-American" and even openly resented and hated the native Old Stock Americans. They created many of the corrupt Democrat political machines such as Tammany Hall. Some even wanted to create almost exclusively Irish cities, such as in Boston in the late 19th century. In Boston's case, they wanted a "Dublin on the coast of North America;" they wanted a city with very few WASPs. I would argue that this group has not fully assimilated to this day. It is not that they could not, but simply that they haven't. They continue to identify as "Irish-Americans" and hate WASPs.
I agree, and well said. I considered making this distinction between the Irish settlers, but for time and simplicity's sake I left it out. Maybe I should have given it a brief paragraph. My Irish ancestors were the Protestant, late 17th and early 18th century vintage.
The Irish are a complicated people, but I admire them.
I think Ireland is a fascinating and beautiful country. I am of partial Scots-Irish/Ulster-Scots Protestant descent. I resent the Anglo hate from the Irish, and the WASP and Old Stock American hate from the "Irish-Americans." Anglo hate is a sure sign of anti-Americanism.
I agree. As Americans, we no longer have the luxury of inter-ethnic resentments and squabbling, especially between such close relations as the British Isles. Our enemies, foreign and domestic, have been actively ethnically replacing us for decades. We must unite or perish.
We have been identified accurately as a race by our enemies. I agree. We must accurately identify ourselves in return and unite against the common foe. Quite simple really
No more complicated than other Europeans.
Btw, American is a national identity, not an ethnic one.
This piece argues otherwise, convincingly.
American is not an ethnicity, just as British isn't. Those are nationalities with internal ethnos. A Cajun is not the same as a Yankee. Both are American though.
This concept is not difficult to understand. This accurately identifies us and can help us unite better than the blanket ethnos of American. Again, I have little in common with a Cajun, for example.
Gaels in Scotland came from Ireland. Many Hebridean Gaels came over after Culloden.
Scottish Highlanders or the Gaelic speaking Scots have been here almost from the beginning. They are an integral part of this nation and integrated well. America is indeed Anglo-Celtic. However, many Irish-Catholics who arrived post-1840 have not assimilated and lived in their own ethnic enclaves for generations.
Many Midwestern Germans did the same and honestly still do. I grew up around them. They aren't the same ethnos as me. They view America very differently from the two of us.
I guess this is less of an original European ethnos issue and more of an issue between Heritage Americans and more recent colonists. Hmmm.. 🤔
Yes, something to think more about.
The era in which the various northwestern Europeans settled can indicate or differentiate their personalities and motivations, even within very specific geographical origins, as @GCH said above.
An ethnicity is like a family, with shared ancestry, language, traditions, and history, yet still with variety and differences. The farther out in time and space you move, the "family" becomes an "extended" family. And after even more time and space, the family (ethnic group) diverges into new ones.
What matters now, is we ethnically circle the wagons to fight back against our displacement by very foreign and very hostile non family members of the Heritage American family. Unite or perish.
Circle the wagons!
I don't think Irish Catholics should be given flak, since they are Northwestern Europeans just like their Protestant British counterparts. And they are related to the English, Scots, and Welsh people. In Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, I don't recall hearing any contempt for Irish culture. Nor resentment for English culture.
How can you claim to discover a land where InDios, known as Latinos have lived Centuries before your Immigrant european ancestors Invaded our Continent.
You, your community Must Cease & Desists this/these Intentional Lie(s).
1870? What?
No. The founding fathers were very clear in the preamble to the Constitution: "Ourselves and our Posterity."
That's it. You don't get to put words into their mouths or make things up. Heritage Americans are those who are descended from the people who fought in the American Revolution *and that is it.*
Nobody who came here afterward, nobody who was a loyalist.
You're wrong. Colonists freely mixed with all races upon arrival from the french to the indigenous populations. They rejected the British ethos of a dominating church/state [Anglican] religion just as the Irish fought to hold onto their Catholic identity in Ireland. The over-reaching imperial rule of England was rejected soundly by the Quakers, the Puritans, the Catholics and other sects. The Mormons went on to create their wholely unique American Christianity.
Crenshaw identifies the English language as the first inheritance, arguing it provided a unified means of communication essential for American civilization. He warns of its decline through increased bilingualism and advocates making English the official language.
What a crock. English language was adopted world-wide as the language of business and commerce after WWII, when the country was technologically and financially at its peak, and held the world together with it's neo-liberal policies that let the whole world recover for the destruction brought on by Nazi scum and fascist regimes of Mussolini and Franco. English is bastard language cobbled together from the Romance languages and the Germanic. It's an ever-changing and growing language that readily adapts different words from different cultures into it. As the spelling and linguistic rules change, we see how incredibly different our writings are even from out colonial predecessors.
Christianity constitutes the second inheritance, with Crenshaw challenging claims of colonial religious decline by citing evidence that 56-80% of founding-era Americans were "churched," with 98.1% of congregations being Protestant. He argues America is "normatively Christian" at its core.
Nonsense. As the country interacted with the French to the North, the indigenous populations, and the Spanish to the South. Colonists began to interact with many new norms, mores, and religions. All were affected. Don't forget the Mormons rejected all and went their own way, and the Quakers who hold onto their beliefs rejecting modernization so even "heritage Americans" are considered "The English."
The third and fourth inheritances—self-government and Christian government—reflect America's tradition of local political autonomy informed by explicit Christian principles. Crenshaw contends that colonial and founding documents demonstrate intentional Christian governance.
Funny, for a government considered by its current residents to be a "Christian government" it sure adapted a lot from the Iroquois Confederacy, heathens all. Whatabout Founding Father John Adams who unequivocally wrote: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." A Christian nation seems to be a very modern idea, popularized by some Protestant sects interested in breaking America's societal norms.
Liberty, the fifth inheritance, is defined not merely as freedom from constraints but as "spiritual freedom" to choose moral good within community contexts. Crenshaw rejects modern individualism as false freedom.
Liberty is political term derived from a democracy movement that began in France and came to England. It means the liberty to be able to exercise your political rights against the overweening tyranny of a monarch. Which lead to the creation in European countries in documents like the British Magna Carta which established that including kings (and subsequently presidents) are subject to the laws of the nation and have certain inalienable rights.
The sixth inheritance, equality under law, derives from America's Christian-English legal tradition, establishing principles like presumption of innocence and trial by jury.
See previous question.
Grade-school civics is not the place to decide how the current US population of 350 million should be living. The United State's beauty, strength, vibrancy comes from it's modern population not from 18th Century throwbacks. Embrace the 21st Century, it's the only way to thrive and survive. Realize that the combined population of North and South America is just over 1 Billion people. There are 4.8 Billion people in Asia. 1.5 Billion people in Africa. All those other billions are working, studying, building, innovating, and cooperating. We're in competition, we will not conquer. Our strength and power comes from ability to change and adapt, understand and assimilate, accept and respect. Think about it.
TL;DR
This was interesting Ragnar, what books did you use for this research? Any recommendations?
Yeah. I want to see sources, too
Literally the most basic facts about history. Do you want sources for the landing of the Mayflower? How about for the date of the Declaration of Independence?
In your opinion, what are we to do with the hyphenated "Americans?"
I hope that by spreading the awareness and history of Heritage Americans, the Hyphenated Americans will connect the dots of our ancestors and our heritage with the nation that Hyphenated Americans enjoy today and their ancestors sought and were granted. Our enemies seek to turn Hyphenated Americans into Anti Americans.
Ideally that is what would happen. However, what I often see from even many ethnic Americans on the right is a rejection of the Old Stock and Anglo-American heritage of our country. They want to redefine America around themselves. To them, America is a "pan-European" nation. They may even claim that "the Italians built this country" or "the Irish-Catholics built this country."
I concur with your observation. However, I think most people go along with whomever or whatever is most compelling, even if it's wrong and destructive. But through passion, focus, and work we can become a powerful minority that influences the majority. Which ethnic group has been the most influential over the last 60+ years? They're a small fraction of US citizens. So imagine what we, the rightful heirs to America, can accomplish.
That is a good point. We need to be an influential minority. I just lament the fact that we Old Stock Americans, while not an insignificant portion of the population, no longer make up the vast majority of our own nation.
Or, we follow our fathers.
No, but Hebridean Gaels did, and I'm no Yankee.
No doubt the Scots are an integral part of America. I too am both descended from Highlanders and Lowlanders.
1640s? That's pretty late. My 11th great-grandfather William Bradford was a signatory to the Mayflower Compact (1620) and was the second governor of the Plymouth Colony starting in 1621. Then a bunch of ancestors throughout the 1620s and 1630s.
Your misplaced arrogance and hostility is counterproductive.
I'm heritage American and I do not think it's an ethnicity. It is a nationality. I am genetically and culturally different to many Americans, even other heritage Americans. Scots forefather from the Hebrides came here and fought in the revolution.
Thanks for your comments. And salute to your Scot forefather for fighting in the Revolutionary War!
Ethnicity, unlike nationality (a legal or political affiliation with a state), encompasses shared cultural traits, language, religion, and historical experiences that can unify a group despite genetic variation. Through ethnogenesis, these early Americans—primarily of English and Northern European descent—developed a cohesive identity rooted in Protestant values, English language, and civic traditions like representative governance and common law, which became foundational to U.S. culture.
While genetic diversity has grown, this shared cultural heritage, forged over generations, supports the idea of an American ethnicity distinct from mere nationality, even as it continues to evolve with later influences.
Even though I still disagree, and have touched on the topic of American ethno-genesis before, I'll just say that the article was good and it's nice seeing folks like us speaking up. I just think the idea of an American ethnicity is rather new, due to my own studies into our history and the attitudes of most of the colonies and the early states, leading up to the Civil War. Honestly, I wonder if the interstates and highways leading kids to colleges far from home broke those old ethnic enclaves. They were once mighty, and remnants exist still.
I'm not the same as a Yankee or Cajun. Different ethnos, same nationality. America is similar to Britain in that regard, which makes sense since this is an Anglo nation by and large.
Thanks.
And fair enough, this is a dynamic topic with sufficient nuance to have valid differences of opinion.
I have a few too many Yankees in my family tree for my liking. The ancestors that I could find who fought in the Civil War fought for the Union 😑.
My German and Scandinavian ancestors bring sanity to my DNA.
I've got some Yankee blood, but I have more Midwestern German and Hebridean Scots.
How you know who is a Heritage American today? My first known ancestor, an Englishman, came here in 1650 from Essex. His son bought slaves shipped from Dahomey in Africa in 1680, one of whom was my (incredible number of greats) grandmother. Before there even WAS a United States of America. A couple of Scotsmen and one Irishman got into my bloodline too, right up until the Civil War. It went all black and a little indigenous after that. Since 1650 every single one of my grandparents, and my parents, are all buried right here in America. Ancestors that fought in every war the country ever had including the very first. Im as American as American can get. Yet, youd exclude me and include some Italian or Jew who just happened to marry a Scots-Irish woman in the 1920s! Barely have any roots here, never shed any blood here, no ancestors in the ground here, yet they get the "heritage." Sorry. This test doesnt fly. Bottom line for me ... you gotta have an ancestor from the British Isles at the founding for sure since the mixed up Romanized Anglo-Saxon Viking Normandic Celts we call the English ... they founded the place, I agree with that. But the main thing is having deep roots in America. Not some other place. You include, for example, a Hungarian because no Hungarians ever contributed anything to the American culture. Not its religion, language and way of life (England) , not its music (Africa), or its food (Indigenous), or really anything other than coming here and joining up what was already built by others. However, I agree, if you're mostly some kinda Slav or a Jew or some other ethnic white , and you maybe can dig back and find one from 1830 in your line and thats as far back as you can go ... I don't see how such a person could get the "Heritage" distinction.
But since were all basically mutts now...are there any pure (by pure I mean you've hired a family research genealogist to look into it) Heritage Englishman left in America?
How can you claim to discover a land where InDios, known as Latinos have lived Centuries before your Immigrant european ancestors Invaded our Continent.
I would say we run it like this, northwestern European and in the USA already = heritage stock. Other European ethnicities that have been here for four or more generations have likely interbred with heritage Americans, they get to join the club. All other Europeans should be regarded as "integrating" or "not integrating".
In no way, shape, or form should we regard non-European races as either heritage or ally Americans. The only exemptions to this being our territories (I will include Hawaii in this category) and certain Hispanics (subject to genetic testing, many of them are nearly full-blooded Europeans). The territories should be essentially regarded as separate nations under the American aegis, they should be governed and administered differently as a result.
Do you have any thoughts on people with mixed heritage? I can trace my lineage back to mayflower voyagers, but only through one grandparent . The others all immigrated from Europe , mostly after the civil war.
This is a primer. Not a Ph.D. thesis.
My people were here before yours (1620). Your arrogance and antagonism sows division and discredits you as emotional rather than scholarly or brotherly.
The founding of the U.S. colonies and the eventual establishment of the United States were significantly influenced by religious motivations, though the degree and nature of religious influence varied across time and region.
Founding of the Colonies
- Puritan New England (1620s–1630s): The Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies were founded by English Puritans seeking religious freedom from the Church of England’s perceived corruption. The Pilgrims (Plymouth, 1620) and Puritans (Massachusetts Bay, 1630) aimed to create a "city upon a hill," a model Christian society based on strict Calvinist principles. Their governance, laws (e.g., Blue Laws), and social structures emphasized religious conformity, with church attendance mandatory and dissenters like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson exiled for challenging orthodoxy.
- Rhode Island (1636): Founded by Roger Williams, a Puritan dissenter, Rhode Island was established on principles of religious liberty, advocating for the separation of church and state. It became a haven for Baptists, Quakers, and others persecuted elsewhere.
- Maryland (1634): Founded by Lord Baltimore as a refuge for English Catholics facing discrimination, Maryland promoted religious tolerance for Christians (though not always consistently applied). The 1649 Act of Toleration granted freedom of worship to Christians, a rare early example of religious pluralism.
- Pennsylvania (1681): William Penn, a Quaker, founded Pennsylvania as a "Holy Experiment" to provide a safe haven for Quakers and other religious groups. It emphasized religious tolerance, pacifism, and fair treatment of Native Americans, attracting diverse settlers like Mennonites and Lutherans.
- Other Colonies: While Virginia (1607) and the Carolinas were more economically driven (tobacco, trade), religion still shaped their societies. The Church of England (Anglican) was established in Virginia, and religious rhetoric often justified colonization as a mission to spread Christianity. Even in these colonies, religious dissenters like Baptists faced persecution.
Founding of the United States
- Religious Context in the Revolution (1770s–1780s): By the time of the American Revolution, religious fervor, particularly among Protestant denominations, played a role in mobilizing support for independence. The Great Awakening (1730s–1740s), a widespread religious revival, fostered a sense of shared identity and questioned traditional authority, indirectly fueling revolutionary sentiment. Many colonists viewed their cause as divinely sanctioned, with sermons framing the fight against British tyranny as a moral and religious duty.
- Deism and Enlightenment Influence: Many Founding Fathers (e.g., Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison) were influenced by Enlightenment ideals and Deism, emphasizing reason and a non-interventionist God. While they respected religion’s societal role, they prioritized individual liberty and religious freedom over establishing a state religion.
- Constitutional Framework (1787–1789): The U.S. Constitution reflects a balance between religious heritage and Enlightenment principles. It avoids establishing a national religion (Article VI bans religious tests for office; First Amendment ensures free exercise and prohibits establishment of religion). This was driven by practical concerns—diverse colonies with competing denominations (Congregationalists, Anglicans, Baptists, Quakers) made a unified state religion untenable—as well as philosophical commitments to liberty.
- Religious Rhetoric in Founding Documents: While the Constitution is secular, the Declaration of Independence (1776) invokes religious language, referencing “Nature’s God,” the “Creator,” and “divine Providence.” This reflects a broad, inclusive of religious sentiment appealing to both Christians and Deists, framing inalienable rights as divinely endowed.
- Continued Influence: Post-independence, religion remained central to American identity. Many states initially maintained established churches (e.g., Massachusetts until 1833), but the First Amendment’s principles gradually led to disestablishment. The Second Great Awakening in the early 1800s further diversified American religion, reinforcing its cultural significance.
While many Heritage Americans today are secular, The establishment of the U.S. colonies and the later founding of the United States were deeply shaped by religious motivations, with the extent and type of religious influence differing by time and place. And Heritage Americans today may be secular, but it doesn't change the past.
"A wall of text" is the most fundamental facts about the 170 years of colonial history leading up to the Constitution and the Constitution itself.
<shrug>
So “americans” began with the Founders of the 1770s with their clever Enlightenment ideas? and not the New Englanders who landed in Mass (who were, btw, mostly from which area of England?) or the people who populated the Southern colonies who were from Where?
I actually agree with that thesis. the New Englanders are welcome to the american brand; they own it. But as we know they were specifically Puritan. The other colonies, which may or may have been settled by people from different parts of the British Isles, and so who may or may not have shared a culture with the New Englanders, may (or may not) have had similar religious impulses.