- Share via
The ironies abound. As the United States looks forward to the 250th anniversary of American independence, the sitting president is pictured wearing a crown and describing himself as a king, apparently oblivious to the fact that he is proudly embracing the political identity of Britain’s George III.
Donald Trump can perhaps be forgiven his awkward gesture. He sings from an old songbook: “Don’t know much about history.” But the fact that Trump is embracing the title of monarch as we prepare to celebrate America’s dramatic denunciation of monarchy merits more than a passing smile.
Moreover, the conflict between the values of the American Revolution and the Trump political agenda goes much deeper. And that fact is likely to be fully exposed in the flood of books, op-eds, podcasts and a Ken Burns six-part documentary on the American Revolution, due out in November (full disclosure: I’m quoted in the series). Regard the following words as a preview of the coming attractions.
Democrats are all but impotent; Republicans have capitulated; the media is fractured. There’s only one bulwark left to counter the emergency unfolding in Washington
In addition to the explicit denunciation of monarchy, the American Revolution was founded on what the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. described as “a promissory note” contained in the Declaration of Independence. Here are the magic words of the American founding:
We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are established among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
This is the seminal statement of the American Creed, as sociologist and economist Gunnar Myrdal called it. Abraham Lincoln, who also knew how to make history with words, claimed that Thomas Jefferson was the original American oracle:
All honor to Jefferson — to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth … and so to embalm it there, that today and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.
The Silicon Valley mantra of ‘move fast and break things’ doesn’t work in government.
We can safely assume that Lincoln had a twinkle in his eye when he wrote “a merely revolutionary document.” His main point was to interpret Jefferson’s words as a bold attempt to plant an egalitarian ideal at the very start of American history that would, over the stretch of time, slowly but surely become a social and political reality. In effect, the American Revolution did not end when Gen. Charles Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington; it has been a living and constantly growing set of truths.
In the ensuing celebrations of American independence, once the July 4th fireworks die down, we see a robust debate among historians about Lincoln’s interpretation of Jefferson’s words and heated battles over the reasons why the founders consciously decided to defer the full meaning of the Jeffersonian promise, most especially to tolerate slavery, an institution clearly at odds with the core values of the Cause.
Here is where the Trump political agenda enters the argument. The current president not only intends to unravel the American republic, he also seeks to end the ongoing American Revolution that Jefferson launched and Lincoln described. His popular slogan “Make America Great Again” is deliberately ambiguous. For some it could mean before a man who looked like Barack Obama occupied the White House. For others, residents of the former Confederacy, it could mean before the Civil War.
Prosecutor Danielle Sassoon resigned over what she said was an effort to use the justice system to force the New York mayor to carry out a political agenda.
In between it might mean: before MLK Jr. had his dream, before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, before Roe vs. Wade, before Brown vs. Board of Education, before Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, before FDR’s New Deal. The list could go on, but an overarching pattern is clear. The significant reforms of the 20th and 21st centuries, the movements that mobilized government powers to support racial and gender equality in keeping with Jefferson’s vision of the founding, must be relegated to oblivion. In effect, the American Revolution must end, erased from the history books.
The commemoration of the 250th anniversary of American independence is destined to generate a spirited debate over who and where we are as a people and a nation. Will Trump and his devoted followers be right to celebrate the end of the American Revolution? Or is the idealism of Jefferson and Lincoln still alive and the American Revolution poised to enter a new chapter?
While historians are great at predicting the past we are no better than everybody else at predicting the future. The jury is still out.
Joseph J. Ellis is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian. His latest book, “The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding,” will be published in October.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article frames the American Revolution as an ongoing struggle to fulfill the Declaration of Independence’s “promissory note” of equality and unalienable rights, which leaders like Lincoln and MLK Jr. sought to expand through civil rights advancements[4]. This view positions the Revolution as a living process rather than a historical event.
- It criticizes Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” agenda as an attempt to dismantle 20th- and 21st-century reforms (e.g., voting rights, gender equality) that align with the Revolution’s ideals, arguing this agenda seeks to erase the continuum of progress[4].
- The author emphasizes the Founders’ contradictions, such as tolerating slavery while proclaiming liberty, but suggests Jefferson’s words created a framework for later generations to challenge systemic injustices, making the Revolution a “rebuke” to modern authoritarianism[4].
Different views on the topic
- Critics argue that narratives of an “unfinished revolution” risk sanitizing historical atrocities, such as Indigenous dispossession and slavery, by focusing on aspirational ideals rather than systemic failures. For example, New York’s educational initiatives highlighting treaty violations with Native nations underscore enduring injustices unresolved since 1776[1].
- Some historians note that Britain abolished slavery and expanded voting rights earlier than the U.S., challenging the notion that America has uniquely progressive revolutionary ideals. This raises questions about whether framing the Revolution as “unfinished” distracts from its exclusionary origins[1][2].
- Skeptics highlight how celebrations of the Revolution often omit marginalized voices, such as enslaved people and women, whose struggles for autonomy were sidelined. The Maryland Center for History and Culture’s exhibitions, for instance, emphasize the disconnect between revolutionary rhetoric and lived realities for non-elite groups[2][3].
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
