The 1776 Commission clearly faltered in design and execution, but the basic premise of a government commission on our founding history has a long precedent. Since the 19th century, the federal government has created many of these commissions, mainly in relation to the American Revolution and the time of the foundation. They expanded the focus of American history, boosted national unity and even promoted concepts of freedom internationally. In 1924, for example, President Calvin Coolidge signed the George Washington Bicentennial Celebration Commission six years before the event and sought to “guarantee intellectual rigor” by incorporating historians and the American Historical Association. This led to public celebrations around the world, presentations by historians in the capital and the publication of an edited collection of letters from Washington. Occurring during the Great Depression, it woke up “the whole earth” “despite the economic crisis,” said Commission Director Sol Bloom, and did “more to help maintain national sanity during these difficult times than anything else could have. done, ”reported Muncie Post-Democrat.
In 1973, Congress created the Bicentennial Administration of the American Revolution, which offered a chance to reengage with America’s history. As President Gerald Ford said in 1976: “We Americans must pause and consider what our country means to us – and what it means to the world.” In the wake of the resignation of Watergate and Richard Nixon (some previously accused Nixon of politicizing the celebration), the Bicentennial, which included public events and academic components, encouraged unity and inclusion with almost the entire population participating in some way combined with a large expansion in several public historic sites.
History celebrations were also used to sow division. In 1876, during the centenary of the American Revolution in and around Boston, descendant patriots excluded African Americans, Irish Americans, and suffragettes from positions of social prominence and political power. Patriots’ heirs called those without “common blood” non-Americans, while minority groups labeled their accusers as “unworthy descendants”[s]. ”This was a battle between a literal and a symbolic heritage of the American Revolution – could your ideals be expanded to everyone? This led to years of bitter social and political feuds, such as which monuments were erected, whether certain types of protest were acceptable and which political candidates adequately represented the Founders’ beliefs and current citizens. (Does it look familiar?) Certain events of the revolutionary era, such as the Battle of Bunker Hill, were defended by Bostonians as “a glorious act of patriots”, while the Boston Massacre, where the half-breed Crispus Attucks was the first American killed, was remembered as a “low and shameful mob”.
The United States is currently experiencing a “decline in historical thinking” as the New Yorker called. It is evident in the use of the word “patriot” in reference to those who revolted on Capitol Hill, the overwhelming push for STEM in education (accompanied by the seemingly daily closure of the college’s history departments) and the state of Illinois Rep. LaShawn KO Ford’s appeal for the abolition of history classes in Illinois schools to “instead devote more attention to civic education”, which, confusingly, cannot be taught effectively without history. Likewise, there has been a recent unfortunate anti-founding movement. When the story appears on the news, it is usually politicized. The 1776 Commission was an example, with its anachronistic references to the “Pro-Life Movement” and comparisons between American progressives and Mussolini. But the New York Times’ Project 1619 was also problematic – although it was journalism, not a government report. The project states that “the founding ideals of our democracy were false when they were written”, based on the initial questionable and easily objectionable claim “that the colonists declared their independence from Britain … to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies” ( although the Times‘then made a “clarification” and other changes). Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, a critic of both projects, recently noted this connection: “[The 1776 Commission report is] the reverse of these polemics, presented as history, which claim that the nation was founded as a slavery. … It is basically a political document, not a story. ”
Neither project features writings by former real American historians (although “1619” had fact-checkers and consultants, like Leslie M. Harris – whose advice was “ignored”). Both offer big, bold statements that omit conflicting evidence and often ignore the broader historical record. (For example, each omits any substantive references to Native Americans, loyalism or colonial history beyond the 13 British ones.) Both also wish to shape the future of American education.
Despite these criticisms, “Report 1776” and “Project 1619” each have valuable elements. You cannot accurately tell America’s history without slavery and racism, nor can you do so without the Founders’ understanding and promise of freedom. An inherent contradiction? Yes. But can both be avoided? No. Is the Declaration of Independence flawed? Yes, but its evolution, content and impact are still important for every American to know, therefore, the conclusions of the “1776 Report” that “our Declaration is worth preserving, our Constitution is worth defending” offer a productive starting point and legitimate for discussion. “Our story has been a constant struggle between the American ideal that we are all created equal and the harsh and horrible reality that racism, nativism, fear and demonization have long separated us,” said Biden on Wednesday. To understand and engage with American history, the nation must consider these legacies and many more.
This is where a new historic commission – hopefully with bipartisan support – can enter. The purpose of this new commission, created when our nation begins preparations to celebrate its 250th anniversary on July 4, 2026, is to produce a report which presents the main themes of the foundation with additional suggestions for questions for discussion and primary sources offering different perspectives. It needs to be suitable for an ordinary reader and adapt to the classroom. Should objectify objectivity and help establish the basic facts. It must also seek to update and expand our country’s narrative and correct errors (especially in widely distributed textbooks).
The commission should include historians and scholars of differing views, elementary and high school teachers and museum staff from places like George Washington’s Mount Vernon, the Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of the American Indian and the National Service of Parks. And it should include students from different perspectives, races, genders and ages. It is important for educators to look for the stories that students really want to learn to help inspire and inform future generations.
A national discussion will not, and should not, take place overnight and should not be isolated. But it must happen – for national unity and to produce informed citizens who can protect themselves from disinformation, whether it comes from within the country or from a foreign adversary.
Whether a new commission is called or not, the politicization of history is going nowhere. The party struggle over the meaning and history of the American Revolution has existed since the beginning; even the Founders themselves were not a united voice. But they were united in the belief that American ideals were important and worthy of public discourse. And we can ensure that the nation gets the facts right as we continue this discussion today. In trying to find something in common in our past, we can only develop a shared appreciation for what we can still achieve.