(1 / 2)

The short answer is: largely no, but the nature of the federal union was certainly a topic of considerable partisan debate in the era of the early republic.

I'm going to slightly combat the characterization of that other answer which said that "states used to be seen as 13 separate nations". I have written this lengthy answer previously which gives detail about the history of the national American identity. The TL;DR of that answer is that most scholars today have argued that the start of a national identity predated the Revolution, and then the Revolution more or less confirmed it. There were split allegiances as an "American" and as a "Virginian" or "Pennsylvanian" or wherever you happened to be from, but the idea that "state identity comes first" was really only something that developed after 1830, as the U.S. marched toward Civil War. (For a good examination of this topic I did not cite in that previous answer, see: Shifting Grounds: Nationalism and the American South, 1848-1865 by Paul Quigley.) Before the Revolutionary era, the colonists considered themselves "British". From the time of the Revolution on, they usually considered themselves "American"—and at worst, had split allegiances between state and nation. It really wasn't until the 1830s onward that some started arguing "state identity supersedes American identity". On the contrary, in the period between 1789-1861, accusations of disloyalty and treason were regularly lobbed against partisans who were perceived as insufficiently patriotic to the United States, the Constitution, and the federal government. And this cut both ways, politically. Whichever party was out of power at the time tended to face such accusations.

So while that other user's answer isn't entirely wrong, the idea of states forming one nation came about a bit earlier than the U.S. Constitution did, and in fact, the Constitution was adopted to deliberately tighten that bond. There may have still been some degree of considering the states as "13 separate nations" in 1787-88, but as I detailed in my previous answer, this would probably be overstating the case. One interesting clue is to see how the word "country" was being used over the time period. Before 1770, "country" almost always meant "colony", but by 1790, "country" almost always referred to the United States collectively.

That said, there were some laggers behind, particularly among anti-Federalists. While Thomas Jefferson was in France during the debates on the Constitution, he was very much an opponent to what became the more nationalist Federalist Party, and you can see from his writings how he would use the word. For example, in a 1784 letter to George Washington about the proposed split of Virginia's westward lands that became the Northwest Territory, Jefferson used "our country" to mean Virginia. But by 1787, he was regularly using "our country" (examples 1, 2) to refer to the United States. During his presidency, he very often used "our country" to refer to the U.S. as a whole, starting with his First Inaugural Address.

Moreover, even with a federal skeptic like Jefferson, it wouldn't be proper to say that he envisioned the United States as a treaty-like union, even before the U.S. Constitution was adopted, though that document certainly drove the point home. In a 1785 letter to James Monroe, he again griped on the subject of Virginia ceding its western land to the federal government with the profits of land sales to be split among all the states, because he believed it would create bad blood between the states at a time when the U.S. should be forming a single national identity:

"[The prospect of the Northwest Ordinance] separates still more the interest of the states which ought to be made joint in every possible instance in order to cultivate the idea of our being one nation, and to multiply the instances in which the people shall look up to Congress as their head."

And again, Jefferson was on the side of politics that was less interested in united American nationhood at the time. As a few examples from other politicians, in early 1784, Benjamin Franklin used the phrase "our country" to refer to the United States when complaining of the bald eagle becoming the national bird. In a 1783 dispatch (see footnote), John Adams had written of the importance of the U.S. acting as "one nation" and as "one people" in foreign affairs.

That same year, George Washington sent out a circular to the states upon the eve of the Treaty of Paris that would end the American Revolution, outlining some of the principles that he envisioned for the U.S.'s future. In order to maintain "the United States as an independent Power" (notice "an independent power", not powers), he believed a government would need to operate as an "indissoluble Union of the States under one federal Head" - an insinuation that the Articles of Confederation would need to be strengthened at the very least, if not replaced all together.

As further evidence of national identity, George Washington would famously earn the nickname "the father of the country", meaning the United States. This nickname and its meaning had been conferred upon him at least as early as 1787, first recorded in a letter by Henry Knox, claiming it as already being a well-known attribution. Not coincidentally, in this letter, Knox lobbied Washington to attend the Constitutional Convention, which would replace the Articles of Confederation, because, as the "father of [his] country" Washington could lend gravitas to the important work of strengthening the legal bonds of the states under a more consolidated federal government.

But even under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was moving toward a unified system. In their 1784 directive to the U.S. ministers (ambassadors) overseas who would be negotiating diplomatic treaties with the various nations in Europe, the ministers were given the instructions:

"...these United States [shall] be considered in all such treaties, and in every Case arising under them, as one Nation upon the Principles of the Federal Constitution."

Once the actual U.S. Constitution was ratified between 1787-89, the government operating as a single nation, rather than as a treaty between separate nations, became more evident. There certainly were separate schools of thought on the subject, especially as the issue of slavery became more contentious. (See: Commentaries on the Constitution, 1790-1860 by Elizabeth Kelley Bauer for discussion of the debate among politicians and scholars of the era.) But the U.S. Supreme Court, and even Congress in the period before 1830, was never very much conflicted on the subject. The U.S. Constitution had formed a single nation, not a treaty or a league, which is why it was called a "constitution" and not a "treaty".

According to Kenneth M. Stampp in his influential article "The Concept of a Perpetual Union", the most concise and thorough explanation of the concept of how the U.S. federal government under the Constitution was intended to operate is found in Andrew Jackson's "Nullification Proclamation" of 1832 (written by Secretary of State Edward Livingston). The speech explicitly rejects the idea that the U.S. was only a treaty, alliance, or league, nor was it ever meant to be. It was, in fact, intended to be a single, unified country, and had been since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

The importance of a single, united nation is underlined by the fact that the two most famous American speeches between the ratification of the Constitution and the Civil War were considered in that era to be George Washington's Farewell Address, and Daniel Webster's "Second Reply To Hayne" on the Senate floor, both of which are speeches promoting U.S. nationalism. Webster's speech was in response to the anti-national "Nullification Doctrine" proposed by Sen. Robert Hayne of South Carolina, and it ended with the famous line that "dear to every true American heart" is the sentiment "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!" James Madison, "the father of the Constitution", was still alive at the time and was asked by Hayne to weigh in. Madison rejected Hayne's Constitutional interpretation, and sent Webster a letter of congratulations, wholeheartedly agreeing with Webster's argument.

And even the opponents of the nationalist school rarely argued against the federal government's authority in foreign affairs, treaties, expansionism, regulation of interstate commerce, police power, even taxation. They just had a stricter interpretation of some of those powers. But again, these were partisan issues. As said at the top, at best, there were differences of political opinion on the nature of the federal union. There was never a time where the Jeffersonian, anti-federal interpretation wasn't faced with considerable opposition. As these Constitutional interpretations entered the realm of common law, the anti-nationalists consistently lost in the courts. Ultimately, they lost in the legislative and executive branches, too.

While national identity predates the Revolution, centralization should be understood as a product of the Constitution & in terms of expansionism. The creation of a strong national government was, of course, the purpose of the Constitution. But the Jeffersonians often subverted this idea of national supremacy, at least until they were directing the national government itself and found a use for it in terms of Westward expansion.

The Constitution was a document composed explicitly by upper class men who had a clear interest in centralized power. I wrote briefly about this in answering a question about George Washington:

"He was reluctant to wield power, but he also wanted to see a strong national government that would be capable of collecting taxes, with its own revenue and the power of its own militia—one that could protect property rights, maintain social order for Southern plantation owners, and prevent such rebellions as Shay's. A strong national government could also regulate commerce and foster a strong European trade for the Northern business class."

In the conflict over ratification, the Federalists supported the Constitution in its original form. The Antifederalists eventually approved of the Constitution but raised concerns regarding a Bill of Rights, and the supremacy of the federal government over the states.

During Washington's first term, parties emerged that mirrored the conflict between Federalists and Antifederalists. The Federalist Party, which favored a strong national government, was an expression of business interests led by Alexander Hamilton. The Democratic-Republicans, which favored state government, represented the plantation class and was led by Thomas Jefferson.

Alexander Hamilton is one of the most important Founders, because his vision of a strong national government was so explicitly tied to his vision of giving the business class a strong interest in maintaining it. According to Hamilton, "no plan could succeed which did not unite the interest and credit of rich individuals with those of the state." At the Constitutional Convention, he put forth his vision of a powerful chief executive, and expressed that presidents and senators should serve for life. In Washington's administration, he used the elastic clause to justify the expansion of national power in his plans for national credit and the Bank of the United States.

Jefferson stood in opposition to this and advocated a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which would limit the powers of the national government and leave those "rights not enumerated" to the states. His vision was a prosperous nation of farmers, mostly left to their own devices.

The Federalist Era (of Washington and Adams) was dominated by the interests of the business class. Washington was a member of the plantation class who refused to align himself with a party, but his desire for strong national government made him sympathetic to the Federalists. During the Adams administration, the Federalists passed the explicitly anti-deomcratic Alien and Sedition Acts. The Democratic-Republicans responded with Jefferson and Madison's Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions, the "Principles of '98" which provided the basis of the states rights doctrine.

Yet this was not a consistent ideology, rather an expression of independence from the national government that was convenient. The proslavery advocates of later generations used states rights to denounce any intrusion upon slavery, but fully supported the power of the national government when it came to foreign policy and especially expansionism.

Expansionism, then, bridges the gap between the planters' aversion to national power and their desire to see slavery protected and expanded into new territory. In the "Revolution of 1800," Jefferson found himself at the head of the national government. The plantation class would dominate for the next 60 years, with periods of concession and conflict towards the business class. In 1860, they would be violently rested from power, with the onset of the Civil War. After that, the business class would firmly control both parties in the late 1800's.

Once the planters actually found themselves controlling national machinery, they expanded national power just as the Federalists did. In his first inaugural address, Jefferson spoke of "a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation." In 1803, he made the technically illegal Louisiana Purchase, and the Embargo Act was a far-reaching expression of national power rivaling the Alien and Sedition Acts.

As foreign policy historian George Herring writes, Jefferson was certain that "small, self-governing republics were best suited to preserve individual liberties," and he spoke of the new territory in almost paradoxical terms. "The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments...keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better."

The outpouring of nationalism after the War of 1812 naturally fueled Western expansion. As Jefferson and Madison compromised with the Federalists, leaving Hamilton's program intact, the Federalist party became a weak minority, and their opposition to the War led to their collapse. James Monroe led this new Era of Good Feelings and national unity. His secretary of state was none other than John Adams's son, John Quincy, who truly established the United States as a nation from sea to shining sea. He excused Andrew Jackson's invasion of Florida, and used it to leverage the Transcontinental Treaty that also secured our claims to Oregon. The expansionist impulse was a national one, but it also brought the plantation class into the fold. Whatever state-level intentions the Founding generation had were swept away with the promise of national empire.

--

Quotes: My previous answer on George Washington and national power is linked here. Hamilton's vision of national power is expressed in this letter, circa 1780. Jefferson's vision of independent republics is quoted from his letter to John C. Breckinridge (August 12, 1803.) For Jeffersonian foreign policy, see George Herring's From Colony to Superpower, Chap. 3 & 4.