
The Nation the Army Built
It was easier said than done. The country they were fighting to establish had no national identity or culture—no flag, no anthem, no touchstone around which citizens could rally. What did it mean to be American? 'Not British' wasn't enough. Over the next eight years, Washington and the Army built the foundations of that national identity—first by asserting the right to legitimate use of force, which is one of the most important powers of a sovereign entity, and then by creating traditions that carry symbolic significance and offer shared experiences, and establishing institutions that represented all 13 states. The process was messy and imperfect in the late 18th century and remains incomplete today.
Most 18th-century nations were based on a single religion, ethnicity, race, or cultural tradition. Their governments were secured with military force or inheritance, and often backed by claims of divine blessing. None of those conditions existed in the colonies. In 1774, when the First Continental Congress gathered in Carpenters' Hall, in Philadelphia, more delegates had visited London than the city that would become our nation's first seat of government. Each colony had spent decades building economic, intellectual, and emotional ties with Great Britain, not with one another. Culturally, the colonists saw themselves as Britons. As late as the mid-1760s, many called themselves King George III's most loyal subjects, demonstrated through enthusiastic purchasing of teapots and art prints depicting royal marriages, births, and anniversaries.
If anything, the colonies viewed one another as competitors and battled over rights to waterways, their westernmost lands, and defensive support from the mother country. Washington himself shared these provincial loyalties and had a low opinion of many of his fellow colonists. The morning after arriving in camp, in July 1775, he conducted a review of the Continental Army units and the defensive positions on the hills surrounding Boston Harbor. He concluded, he later wrote, that the troops were ' exceeding dirty & nasty people ' led by indifferent officers with an ' unaccountable kind of stupidity.'
But the war would change Washington's view of these soldiers, and he came to respect the sacrifice and valor of his troops from all 13 states. The war changed the soldiers themselves. In the peace that followed, veterans became central to America's nation-building project.
Uri Friedman: What if America had lost the Revolutionary War?
Before the war, colonists had celebrated the King's birthday. During the war, those celebrations were replaced by festivities honoring Washington's birthday. In 1779, the Virginia Gazette reported on 'a very elegant entertainment' held at 'the Raleigh tavern by the inhabitants of this city, to celebrate the anniversary of that day which gave birth to General George Washington, Commander in Chief of the armies of the United States, the saviour of his country.' On February 11, 1781, the French allied forces joined in the fun. 'Yesterday was the Anniversary of your Excellency's birth day,' the commander of the French forces wrote to Washington. 'We will celebrate it with the sole regret that your Excellency be not a Witness of the effusion and gladness of our hearts.' The King had served as a unifying figure around whom Britons could rally, and his birthday celebrations had been an important social tool used to reinforce British identity. Washington was a useful substitute.
The general also introduced a new flag. In 1775, the Continental Colors, also known as the Grand Union Flag, which featured 13 red and white stripes with the Union Jack in the upper left corner, was raised by several vessels in Philadelphia and generals in Massachusetts. But any flag that featured the Union Jack could be confused with the British flag on the battlefield. For his headquarters, Washington adopted instead a dark-blue command flag with 13 evenly dispersed white stars. He could have chosen any number of military symbols and evocative images, but chose a flag that made an explicit statement about national unity.
The Army's shared experiences made that unity reality. In the 18th century, Americans rarely traveled more than a few miles from home, but soldiers fought battles in Massachusetts and South Carolina, and in most states in between. They experienced different cultures, ate different foods, and interacted with people from different walks of life. They also regularly went without food, sufficient clothing, or pay. In summer, they slept in tents and were tormented by flies and mosquitoes; in winter, they huddled, shivering, around miserly fires. Their suffering blurred local loyalties and fostered new ties.
As the end of the war loomed, veteran officers built cultural and political bodies such as the Institution of the Society of the Cincinnati. When the Confederation Congress couldn't afford to pay soldiers their back pay or provide pensions for the wounded, the society stepped in to help care for struggling veterans, widows, and their children. It also promoted the values of the Revolution. In the years after the war, the states devolved into competitive bickering. The 2,270 members of the society called on their fellow citizens to cherish their national identity as the reward for winning independence.
These efforts were not uncontroversial. Critics accused the society of trying to establish an aristocracy to control civil and military institutions—one of many disagreements over the evolution of America's identity in the postwar years. The national coalition had largely held together while the states had been battling a shared foe, but deep divisions soon emerged.
Ben Nadler: Where do flags come from?
Anti-Federalists preferred a decentralized national government with most power reserved for the states; Federalists advocated for stronger central government and an energetic executive. Not all Federalists were veterans, but many veterans, especially officers, became Federalists, having suffered as a result of Congress's weaknesses. They understood the consequences of decentralized government.
Some of Washington's favorite officers and aides pushed for a national convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, and pestered and pleaded with Washington to attend. They knew his unifying presence was essential for the proceedings to succeed. At the Constitutional Convention, veterans led the push for a new federal government featuring a powerful single executive. They believed the future of the nation depended on the government's ability to raise funds, protect its borders, manage internal disputes, and dictate foreign policy. If the government failed, so too would the republic, and the American identity would cease to exist. Later, veterans would serve as congressmen, senators, Cabinet secretaries, and executive-branch appointees at much higher rates than civilians.
Washington and his soldiers would not recognize much about 21st-century America. And yet our divisions, the battles over who counts as an ideal citizen, and the challenges of building a nation based on ideas would feel remarkably familiar. So would the debate over the Army's role in protecting our democracy. Washington and his officers knew the risk an army posed to a civilian-led republic. They were determined to protect the institutions and our founding values, rather than destroy them. Their example of deference to civilian authority remains one of the core principles of the armed forces today. The anniversary of Washington taking command is a reminder that the Army's effort to forge a lasting American bond was just the beginning of a long and difficult process. Their goal is our goal, and it's still worth fighting for.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Wall Street Journal
33 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
What the U.S. Learned From the 12-Day War
In his Weekend Interview with Walter Russell Mead, 'The Strike on Iran Was 'Jacksonian' ' (June 28), Tunku Varadarajan notes that Israel is in many ways America's 'most reliable partner' in global security matters. Mr. Mead refers to the Jewish state as 'a fantastic ally' that spends a greater share of its gross domestic product on defense than does the U.S. In 2021, Ron Dermer, now Israel's minister of strategic affairs, predicted that Jerusalem would become Washington's most important ally. That, he admitted, was a big claim for a country the size of New Jersey. But a hypothetical helped to test it: If the U.S. had to choose only one ally, which would it choose?
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Offers Seniors A $6,000 'Bonus' Tax Deduction: Here's How You Qualify For The Benefit
President Donald Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" promises the first new tax break for older Americans since 2017, a temporary "senior bonus" deduction that could reduce many retirees' taxable income by up to $6,000 each year from 2025-28. The Senate-passed version lets every filer 65 or older subtract $6,000 ($12,000 for couples) from income regardless of whether they itemize. The House's One Big Beautiful Bill Act sets the figure at $4,000 per person, reported The Washington Post. Both chambers phase out the break in full for modified adjusted gross incomes up to $75,000 for singles and $150,000 for joint filers. It disappears entirely above $175,000 and $250,000, respectively. Don't Miss: Tired of Grid Failures and Charging Deserts? This Startup Has a Solar Fix and $25M+ in Sales — Now Raising at $3/Share Invest early in CancerVax's breakthrough tech aiming to disrupt a $231B market. Back a bold new approach to cancer treatment with high-growth potential. Middle-income retirees gain the most. A married couple earning $100,000 could save about $1,600 in federal tax under the Senate plan, analysts at Kiplinger estimate. Lower-income seniors who already owe little or no tax on Social Security would see smaller or no savings, while high-income retirees would phased out. "It targets the people who need the help more," said Howard Gleckman of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in a statement to the Washington Post. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget pegs the senior bonus, together with the bill's broader tax extensions, at about $30 billion a year and says it could push the Social Security trust fund's exhaustion date to late 2032 from early 2033 by trimming the taxes seniors pay on their benefits. The Tax Foundation calculates that the four-year deduction alone could cost $90 billion if the Senate number prevails, and as much as $250 billion if later made permanent. What Next: House and Senate negotiators must reconcile the $6,000 and $4,000 figures before a final vote expected before the July 4 recess. The Trump administration argues the deduction "slashes taxes on Social Security" without altering benefit formulas, delivering "historic tax relief" to seniors. Read Next: Maximize saving for your retirement and cut down on taxes: Schedule your free call with a financial advisor to start your financial journey – no cost, no obligation. Warren Buffett once said, "If you don't find a way to make money while you sleep, you will work until you die." Here's how you can earn passive income with just $100. Image Via Eric Hartline-Imagn Images Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Offers Seniors A $6,000 'Bonus' Tax Deduction: Here's How You Qualify For The Benefit originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
EPA says Trump's big bill should help in its fight to freeze billions in green bank funds
WASHINGTON (AP) — The sprawling tax and policy bill that passed Congress repeals a multibillion-dollar green bank for financing climate-friendly projects, and the Trump administration should be allowed to freeze its funding and cancel related contracts with nonprofits, federal officials said in a court filing. Climate United Fund and other nonprofits in March sued the Environmental Protection Agency, its administrator Lee Zeldin and Citibank, which held the program's money. The lawsuit argued the defendants had illegally denied the groups access to billions awarded last year through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, commonly referred to as a 'green bank.' The program was created by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. But the bill that passed Congress on Thursday would repeal the part of the 2022 law that established the green bank and rescind money that hadn't already been obligated to its recipients. The EPA said the bill should hand them a victory in their court fight that is being heard by a federal appeals court in Washington. Now that Congress has rescinded funding, an earlier federal judge's decision forcing the EPA to release money to the groups should be reversed, the agency said in its Thursday court filing. Climate United Fund disagrees. It acknowledges that the bill in Congress is a 'significant policy setback' but argues that most of the money had been disbursed and is unaffected by the bill. And if the EPA wanted to take the money back, there's a different process the agency would need to follow. 'Our funds have already been obligated and disbursed. Any effort to claim otherwise is simply a lie to justify illegal attempts to claw back funds intended to benefit communities across the country,' CEO Beth Bafford said in a statement. According to the EPA, when the agency terminated the grants the funds 'became unobligated.' 'Grantees have desperately performed legal gymnastics to hold tens of billions of taxpayer dollars hostage. In the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, Congress made their intent crystal clear in repealing the program entirely and returning those billions in unobligated funds to the U.S. Treasury,' EPA spokesperson Brigit Hirsch said in a statement. The green bank's goals run counter to the Trump administration's opposition to policies that address climate change and its embrace of fossil fuels. Zeldin quickly made the bank a target, characterizing the $20 billion in grants as a scheme marred by conflicts of interest and potential fraud. In February, Zeldin told Fox News that he suspected the green bank 'was a clear cut case of waste and abuse' that 'in my opinion, is criminal.' The following month, Zeldin terminated the grants. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has previously said that when the federal government was asked for evidence of fraud, the agency didn't provide it and shifted its position. Chutkan decided the government can't terminate the contracts and that the groups should have access to some of their frozen money. That order was put on hold during the EPA's appeal. The agency argues the nonprofits are making constitutional and statutory arguments that don't apply in what it sees as a simple contract fight. If the government successfully argues the case is a contract dispute, then the EPA says it should be heard by a different court that can only award a lump sum – not force the government to keep the grants in place. Federal officials argue there is no law or provision in the Constitution that compels the EPA to make these grants to these groups. In its court filing, the EPA also pointed to comments by Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, as supportive of the agency's position. Capito said previously the bill intended to rescind billions in funding that had been frozen. 'This action reflects not only Congress's deep concern with reducing the deficit, but EPA's administration of the (green bank) under the Biden administration, the agency's selection of grant recipients, and the absence of meaningful program oversight," the agency quotes the senator as saying. ___ The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP's environmental coverage, visit