On July 5, 2025, Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a notable address at the Claremont Institute’s Statesmanship Award Dinner in San Diego. For a man in the second-highest office of the land, his treatment of American citizenship was striking, not for its novelty, but for its clear departure from foundational norms.
From Creed to Kinship
Vance began by challenging the idea of the United States as a creedal nation, a polity bound by shared principles of the Declaration of Independence, calling it simultaneously over-inclusive (drawing in “hundreds of millions, maybe billions” who support American ideals abroad) and under-inclusive (excluding those with ancestral ties, but extremist beliefs). He presented a contrasting model of citizenship rooted in ancestry, place, and “blood-and-soil.” With sentimental reference to generations of his family buried in a Kentucky cemetery, Vance argued that belonging should be tied to living history and rootedness rather than abstract ideals.
This represents more than rhetorical flourish. It signals a paradigm shift, from civic affiliation to ethnic membership. In Vance’s terms, ancestry becomes a qualifier; heritage becomes identity.
Critique from the Center and Beyond
Historians and public intellectuals wasted little time pushing back. Ambassador Daniel Fried offered a powerful critique in The National Interest, opposing Vance’s redefinition for its reversal of Abraham Lincoln’s post–Civil War vision. Lincoln had conceived the nation as “a new nation, conceived in liberty”, not as a bloodline-bound entity. Fried emphasized that Lincoln saw citizenship as a matter of shared principles, not ancestry, drawing on immigrants who “feel…they are part of us” through creed.
Historian and public author John Ganz described Vance’s stance as an “anti-Declaration.” He highlighted the inconsistency of invoking Revolutionary and Civil War symbols while undermining the very ideals those conflicts advanced. Ganz drew contrast with Harry Jaffa, whose defense of Lincoln affirmed that “all men are created equal” meant just that, regardless of bloodline.
Tad Stoermer’s “Heritage Citizenship”
Into this debate steps Tad Stoermer: public historian, educator, and author, who coined the term “heritage citizenship” to categorize this turn toward ancestry-based belonging. Stoermer views this not as nostalgic reflection but as active project: a “restoration” of a racially-defined First Republic rooted in whiteness. The goal, he suggests, is the rewriting of constitutional logic, to reassert lineage as citizenship’s arbiter.
Why This Matters Today
If Vance’s vision is enacted, it would have real-world consequences:
1. Birthright Citizenship at Risk
The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship based on birth within U.S. jurisdiction: an inclusive, principle-based foundation. Vance’s model, however, introduces a lineage test, posing a legal challenge to this constitutional baseline.
2. Political and Social Exclusion
Consider the millions of post-1965 immigrant-descended Americans: legal, patriotic, educated, yet lacking “Appalachian blood.” Their citizenship, under Vance’s rubric, becomes negotiable, diluted by ancestry.
3. Ideological Flexibility for Elites
Despite its broad implications, heritage citizenship allows selective exceptions, for political elites, spouses, or allies (e.g., Vance’s own wife, born in California to Indian immigrants), which erodes the internal consistency of the ideology. Vance can romanticize heritage, while simultaneously reserving membership for his inner circle.
Going Backwards – Constitutionally and Symbolically
This vision directly counters Lincoln’s redefinition of the Union after 1863. At Gettysburg, he consecrated the Union’s cause as “a new birth of freedom,”establishing citizenship through legal equality. Vance’s model, in contrast, retreats into pre-14th Amendment logic, where race and lineage determined belonging.
It also undermines the United States’ role on the global stage. Fried points out that the American creed, its principle-based identity, enabled it to attract “hundreds of millions, maybe billions” of adherents abroad, forming what he describes as a “positive-sum” global leadership structure . Heritage-based identity, by contrast, is zero-sum, exclusive, and inward-looking.
A Historian’s Judgment
For any senior historian, the implications are stark:
• Constitutional Regression: Voting rights and equal protection, hard-won through amendments and civil rights struggles, are put back on the chopping block.
• Political Inequality: Heritage citizenship enables a bifurcated class of Americans, those with “authentic” lineage and those without.
• National Myth versus National Reality: The U.S. has always been a nation of immigrants and wanderers. Vance’s speech polices belonging by ancestry, contra 250 years of integrated identity-building.
Vice President Vance’s Claremont Institute speech is not merely poetic, it is profoundly political. It stakes out heritage, soil, and blood as qualifiers of sovereignty. Critics like Fried, Ganz, and Stoermer understand this as both intellectual and legal retrenchment. The choice now faces American democracy: Will we continue as a principle-based republic, where citizenship is claimed through belief, law, and shared action? Or will we succumb to a lineage-based model that narrows the definition of who belongs?
In highlighting ancestry over creed, Vance’s model asks an inflammatory question: does American identity belong to those we include, or those we exclude? The answer, for nearly two centuries, has been creed. It must remain so.
In a nation guided by Vance-style heritage criteria, citizenship would shift from being a legal, civic covenant to a cultural inheritance. That model would disqualify immigrants, their children, Jewish Americans, those of Latino or Asian descent, even well-known political figures, unless they belong to the “right” ancestry group. Yet the model grants latitude for elite figures, a glaring hypocrisy exposing the project’s exclusionary core. It’s not just a nostalgic vision, it’s a blueprint for a tiered citizenry: real if you’re insider heritage, negotiable if not.
The Rowanwood Chronicles 