We Believe:
A nation cannot survive without a clear understanding of who it is, where it came from, and what principles define its character. America was founded upon a distinct cultural, spiritual, and constitutional heritage, one shaped by Western civilization, biblical moral tradition, and the belief that free people can govern themselves under God. These foundations produced a nation unlike any other in history, rooted in ordered liberty, personal responsibility, and a shared sense of destiny.
We affirm that national identity is not an accident of geography but the product of a people’s history, values, and institutions. When a nation loses its identity, it loses the cohesion necessary for unity, stability, and self‑government. The erosion of America’s cultural foundations has led to confusion, division, and the rise of competing identities that weaken the bonds that once held the nation together.
We believe that restoring America’s identity requires honoring its Christian moral heritage, reaffirming the sovereignty of its states and communities, and recognizing the right of distinct peoples to preserve their traditions and govern their own affairs. A nation that forgets its foundations cannot endure; a nation that remembers them can flourish for generations.
Plank 1: America’s Christian Foundations
We affirm that America’s earliest institutions, laws, and civic ideals were shaped by Christian moral teaching and the worldview of Western Christendom. From the first colonial settlements, the people who built this nation understood themselves as part of a Christian civilization. The Mayflower Compact of 1620 declared the colony was founded “for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith.” The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639), often called the first written constitution in the Western world, stated that government exists to “maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel.” Colonial law codes such as the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641) grounded civil authority in Scripture and Christian ethics.
This understanding carried into the founding era. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, one of the nation’s foundational laws, declared that “religion, morality, and knowledge” were “necessary to good government,” with “religion” universally understood at the time to mean Christianity. James Madison wrote that the future of American civilization depended on the people’s ability to govern themselves “according to the Ten Commandments of God.” John Adams declared that the Constitution was made “only for a moral and religious people,” and George Washington warned in his Farewell Address that national morality could not be sustained without “religious principle.”
Early state constitutions reflected this worldview. Several states required Christian oaths of office, funded religious instruction, enforced Sabbath laws, and defined marriage in explicitly Christian terms. While the federal government was not established as a theocracy, the states themselves were overwhelmingly Christian in law, culture, and public life. America’s identity was rooted in the Christian moral order, and understanding this foundation is essential to understanding the principles that shaped the early Republic.
Plank 2: America’s Founding Cultural and Legal Identity
We affirm that an honest study of America’s origins must acknowledge the actual citizenship laws, cultural assumptions, and legal frameworks that shaped the early colonies and the young Republic. These laws, whether accepted or rejected today, reveal how early Americans understood national identity and political membership.
Nearly every colony and early state defined citizenship, voting rights, militia service, and civic participation in explicitly racial terms. The first federal citizenship law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, limited naturalization to “free white persons” of good character. Many states restricted voting, jury service, and office‑holding to white citizens. Anti‑miscegenation laws existed in numerous colonies and states from the 1600s onward and persisted in some states until 1967, when the Supreme Court struck them down in Loving v. Virginia. The case involved Richard Loving, a white man, and his wife, Mildred, a black woman. These laws, though rejected by many today, demonstrate the legal assumptions and social norms of the era.
Federal immigration policy reflected similar cultural preferences. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 barred immigration from China for decades, marking the first major federal restriction based explicitly on national origin. The Immigration Act of 1924 established national‑origin quotas favoring Northern and Western Europe. These statutes show how lawmakers of the time understood national cohesion and cultural continuity.
Even debates over slavery reveal the complexity of early American views. Several colonies, including Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia, petitioned the British Crown to restrict or end the importation of enslaved Africans. Their efforts were repeatedly blocked by royal vetoes, most famously in the 1770 instruction forbidding the Governor of Virginia to approve any law that might “in any respect” obstruct the slave trade. Colonial leaders feared that continued importation would destabilize their societies, especially in light of uprisings in the Caribbean and the later catastrophe in St. Domingo (Haiti) where there was a mass genocide of whites. The final Declaration of Independence accused the King of “exciting domestic insurrections amongst us,” reflecting colonial fears that British interference threatened to ignite rebellion within their own borders.
These historical laws and documents provide evidence of the norms that shaped the early Republic. Understanding these laws is essential to grasp America’s origins.
Plank 3: America and the Legacy of Western Christian Civilization
We affirm that the United States emerged from the broader tradition of Western Christian Civilization. This heritage provided the philosophical, legal, and cultural foundations upon which the American Republic was built. The Founders saw themselves not as inventors of a new civilization, but as heirs to an ancient one.
Christianity supplied the moral vocabulary of the early Republic: the belief in human dignity, the concept of moral law, the idea that rights come from God rather than the state, and the expectation that a free people must be a virtuous people. From Greece came the ideals of reason, civic virtue, and republican self‑government. From Rome came written law, citizenship, checks and balances, and the concept of the rule of law. From Europe came English common law, Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and the Protestant political tradition that shaped American ideas of liberty, representation, and limited government.
The Treaty of Tripoli (1797) is often cited in modern debates, particularly Article 11, which states that “the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” But this line must be understood in its historical context. It was a diplomatic assurance to the Muslim Barbary States that the United States was not a European Christian empire engaged in religious war. It referred specifically to the federal government, which was intentionally not a theocracy, and did not deny the overwhelmingly Christian character of the states or the civilization from which America emerged.
The Barbary Wars themselves reveal how the early United States understood its place in the world. The Barbary States—Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and Morocco—were Muslim powers that raided European and American ships, enslaved thousands of sailors, and demanded tribute. In their diplomatic language, “Christian” meant Western, European, or white, a racial category, not merely a religious one. American diplomats referred to themselves as “Christians” in this same civilizational sense. The conflict was not theological; it was racial. But it reinforced the understanding that the United States belonged to the Western Christian world (white), distinct from the Islamic powers of North Africa.
America’s institutions cannot be understood apart from this heritage. The Founders saw themselves as preserving ancient liberties, applying Christian moral law, and refining European political tradition.
Plank 4: Localism: A Way Forward
We affirm that the United States is no longer the culturally uniform nation it once was, and that the realities of modern society require a renewed commitment to local self‑governance. While some groups advocate for voluntary repatriation or cultural separation, we also recognize that many communities, of every background, have lived in America for generations and have established deep historical, cultural, and regional roots. These communities cannot simply be erased or ignored. The trend toward cultural balkanization is not a theory; it is a visible social reality, shaped by identity, history, and the natural human tendency to form bonds with those who share common traditions.
Identity politics, though often criticized, reflects a deeper truth: people naturally identify with their cultural, ethnic, and historical communities. This is not unique to any one group. It is a universal human pattern seen across civilizations. In a nation as large and diverse as the United States, it is unrealistic to expect a single national culture to satisfy the needs, values, and aspirations of every community. Localism offers a peaceful and practical framework for navigating these differences.
Localism allows communities to govern themselves according to their own values, histories, and priorities. Under a decentralized model, states may delegate authority to counties, towns, and local districts, enabling communities to shape policies that reflect their unique character. This includes decisions about education, cultural preservation, land use, public safety, and community standards. Localism empowers communities to maintain their traditions without imposing them on others.
Local control also supports cultural preservation. Communities with shared heritage, whether defined by religion, language, history, or tradition, can maintain their institutions, schools, and cultural practices without interference from distant bureaucracies. This model benefits all groups, including long‑established communities that wish to preserve their way of life. It also provides space for minority communities who seek self‑governance within the broader national framework.
Localism strengthens civic engagement. Smaller governance units encourage participation, accountability, and a sense of ownership. People are more likely to invest in the well‑being of their community when they have a direct voice in shaping its future. This model reduces the alienation felt when national policies override local values.
Localism also provides a lawful and peaceful alternative to forced cultural uniformity. In a pluralized nation, one‑size‑fits‑all federal mandates often create conflict by imposing a single standard on communities with vastly different beliefs. Local governance allows communities to coexist without requiring them to abandon their identities or conform to a centralized ideology.
This approach is grounded in the American federalist tradition. The Constitution reserves to the states, and by extension, to local communities, all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government. Localism is not a new idea; it is a return to the original structure of American governance, where communities were free to order their own affairs.
We acknowledge that localism is not a permanent solution to every cultural or demographic challenge. The long‑term future of the nation rests in God’s hands. But localism provides a practical, peaceful, and constitutional framework for communities seeking stability, continuity, and self‑determination in an era of increasing cultural fragmentation.
Our aim is to promote a model of governance that respects community identity, reduces conflict, and allows diverse groups to flourish without coercion or forced assimilation. Localism offers a platform upon which communities can preserve their heritage, strengthen their families, and build a future consistent with their values, while maintaining peace and mutual respect within the broader nation.
Plank 5: Restore States’ Rights and Constitutional Self‑Government
We affirm the original constitutional principle that the several states are sovereign entities, joined in a voluntary union, and endowed with the authority to govern themselves according to the will of their own people. The Tenth Amendment clearly states that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. This balance of authority was designed to prevent tyranny, preserve liberty, and allow diverse communities to live according to their own values and traditions.
The Founders understood that a distant central government could never adequately reflect the convictions, customs, or needs of every region. Thomas Jefferson warned that consolidation of power in the federal government would lead to despotism, while James Madison affirmed that the states serve as “laboratories of democracy,” each free to pursue its own path within constitutional bounds.
Throughout American history, states’ rights have been invoked by many different peoples seeking self‑determination. From New England’s resistance to federal overreach during the War of 1812, to Western states asserting control over land and resources, to cultural and political movements across the nation, the desire for local self‑rule has been a constant theme. The principle is universal: communities govern themselves best when they are closest to the people they serve.
Scripture also affirms the legitimacy of distinct nations and jurisdictions. Deuteronomy 32:8 declares that God “set the bounds of the people,” recognizing that different communities have the right to order their own affairs. The biblical model of governance emphasizes local authority, elders at the gates, and accountability within one’s own community, not distant rulers imposing uniformity on all.
Judicial Activism and the Abuse of the Commerce Clause
We further recognize that much of the erosion of states’ rights has come not through legislation, but through judicial activism. Over the past century, federal courts have repeatedly expanded the meaning of the Commerce Clause far beyond its original intent. What was meant to regulate trade “among the several states” has been stretched to justify federal intrusion into nearly every aspect of life; education, agriculture, family policy, criminal law, and even local moral standards.
This distortion of constitutional language has allowed the federal government to override state authority and impose uniform social policies on communities that never consented to them. Cases such as Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and later rulings opened the door for Washington to regulate activities that are neither interstate nor commerce, effectively nullifying the Tenth Amendment in practice.
Such judicial overreach undermines the very structure of the Republic. When courts reinterpret the Constitution to expand federal power, they do what the Founders explicitly warned against: they place the will of unelected judges above the rights of the states and the people.
Our Position
We therefore support a renewed commitment to states’ rights, allowing each state to enact laws that reflect the moral convictions, cultural traditions, and social priorities of its own citizens. This includes the right to determine policies on education, public safety, taxation, land use, and social order without undue interference from Washington, D.C.
A strong union does not require uniformity; it requires mutual respect among sovereign states. When states are free to govern themselves, citizens can choose to live in communities that reflect their values, and the nation as a whole becomes more stable, peaceful, and prosperous.
Our position is rooted in constitutional fidelity, historical precedent, and the biblical recognition of distinct communities governing themselves. A nation that honors states’ rights honors the freedom of its people and preserves the balance of power essential to liberty.