What is it with mods on this site being the most dishonest douche bags I've ever witnessed? Literally reddit tier pedantry where they don't even engage with the real ideas or points behind post, almost like they lack the ability and instead go for gotchas and attacking obvious strawman or typos in an attempt to get likes.
If you have a bad take, then compound it with bad history (even if its a typo), I'll point out both.
The US had a whole constitutional convention which barely resulted in a constitution, only passing after rigorous compromise where no one got everything they wanted and it was a very heated affair which itself was a follow up after the first attempt at a nation totally failed. Or did you completely miss this from all those history books you totally read?
Really, the US had effectively three constitutional conventions. First the articles of confederation, then the constitutional convention, then the bill of rights.
And yes, there was bitterness, and people who didn't like one another, and disagreements, but that doesn't preclude them agreeing on some principles. In fact, I'd say that them managing to agree on principles is key. But there's a more important document I'd reference here, which is the Declaration of Independence.
There are two ways to interpret Englishman, so I'll deal with both.
If you mean of English decent, this can't be correct. In fact, I don't think you do, so I'll deal with this quickly. Note that in many ways, they weren't all founded on being English, or even British. For example, New Jersey and Delaware were about 20% German, about 27% of New York was Dutch descended, etc. Not to mention the Jews, who were frequently not considered British. But moreover, there were Irish and Scots also. So saying that they were just a group of Englishmen in that sense would be incorrect. But I don't think this was your meaning, but I figured I'd cover that possible meaning while here.
The other option is that you mean "a subject of the English Crown". Here, I'd say you would be close, except one big thing: the American Revolution by definition destroyed that unifying feature, so it required a replacement. Specifically, let's look at the document that severed these common bonds: the Declaration of Independence. Now, this may have been a post hoc justification, where they decided to rebel over a tax and it sorta blew up and now they are trying to assign meaning to it, but their arguments were based in natural rights. Slightly changing from Locke, they cited "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as the inalienable rights of man given by his creation/creator.
See, right there, a common ideal replaced the previous bond of being subjects of the English Crown. Because if that was the bond being used, then they ought to be faithful subjects of the Crown, but they weren't.
the foundation of a nation is a complex thing, real world events, ideals, cultural differences political realities all of these played a factor. To say just one thing went into the creation of a nation is like 5 blind men discribing an elephant by touch. History is complex because people are complex.
I didn't say it was just one thing. But the US being founded on ideals is a lot more accurate than saying it was founded upon being Englishmen, especially given that the Revolution was about no longer being that.
In fact, the US being a nation of ideals is something fairly commonly accepted by both parties, and almost all subbranches of the major parties. The only group that tends to deny it are the crazed leftists who hate America (think the 1619 Project's psuedohistory). Even progressives generally accept that America was founded on ideals though.
