69 pages • 2 hours read
Heather Cox RichardsonA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Richardson proposes that the political question animating the 2020s is the same one that animated the nation’s founding: Is a democracy made of equal members possible? One of the country’s founding principles was a radical deviation from the hierarchies of European dynasties in favor of the idea that a country should operate on the “consent of the governed” (154). This brings to the fore the contradiction of how the Founders said “all men are created equal” (155) yet enslaved Black people and considered Indigenous people “savages.” Those qualifications made it easier for them to consider “all men” as equal; their equality “depended on inequality” (155).
In 2019, Nikole Hannah-Jones originated The 1619 Project, which centers the date when the first enslaved African people arrived in Virginia under the system of chattel enslavement that subsequently shaped the country’s economy, industry, elections, diet and music, health and education inequalities, racial violence, income inequality, slang, legal systems, and ideological racism and anti-Blackness. Trump’s responding 1776 Commission rejects this view and celebrates the Founders as having the perfect vision of democracy.
Richardson points out that the inequality perpetuated by the Founders that led to enslavement, Jim Crow, Juan Crow, Indigenous genocide and displacement, and laws like the 1924 Immigration Act explicitly inspired authoritarians like Hitler, who named these policies as inspirations. Richardson also argues that those pushing hardest for adhering to the United States’ “true principles” the past 300 years have been those marginalized by the Founders’ unequal ideology, who bonded together in communities that contrasted with the image of the conservative, independent cowboy.
Richardson summarizes the demographics of people in the American colonies. Settlers were largely Christian, but there were populations of Jewish and Muslim people as well. Most Black people were enslaved, and most Indigenous people did not have rights or legal protection. Husbands and fathers were legally considered owners of children and women. However, the backbone of the economy “depended on Black, Indigenous, and women’s labor” (161). Easterners thought those who moved west were lawless, while westerners thought easterners were “snooty money-grubbers.” Amid these divisions, the British crown held people together.
Strategies Parliament used in the early 1760s to raise money to pay for the Seven Years’ War were perceived by colonists as an abuse of power. This sparked their efforts to “govern themselves.” To do this, Founders and colonial leaders needed to develop strategies to explain their intellectual arguments and complicated laws to regular colonists. Leaders encouraged anti-crown gang activity, which they thought rallied ordinary people to political causes. Political power slowly moved to the colonists in events like the Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party. The first two Continental Congresses met to strategize about growing tensions and raising an army. Thomas Paine’s 1776 pamphlet Common Sense tipped the scales toward declaring independence, reaching an immense number of people in several months.
Though independence was declared in 1776, and the American Revolution followed, 40 years later John Adams said that the war was essentially a side effect of revolution, as the real revolution had been waged in the minds of the people the 15 years prior.
Richardson asserts that the Founders didn’t understand the “larger implications” of their argument for independence, since they perceived it as a statement of their own right to be equal to white Englishmen. Their first attempt at a government was the Articles of Confederation, which centered state power and cooperation, but the states wouldn’t work together. The Founders came together in 1786 to draft the Constitution. The Constitution centered the federal government, which was derived from the will of its citizens. Elected legislature would write and draft laws, oversee the treasury, and determine the machinations of the military and courts. They would balance a single executive who carried out these laws.
Small states didn’t want to be less represented than large states, while northern states didn’t want enslavers to inflate their power. The framers developed the House of Representatives, to reflect a state’s population, and the Senate, which had two representatives per state. Without mass media, the framers didn’t anticipate their populations would know who the best president would be, so they instituted the Electoral College.
After the Constitution, the framers made the Bill of Rights to preserve people’s liberties and put bumpers around the federal government. In practice, these liberties were “exclusively limited to white men” (173). Though they didn’t anticipate partisanship, it both “engaged ordinary voters” and “weakened the nation’s framework” by hampering checks and balances (174). After the 1796 election, Thomas Jefferson urged electors to vote as winner-take-all rather than as a reflection of their state’s voting. Founders also couldn’t “foresee” or “imagin[e]” the addition of large, sparsely populated states or immensely populated states that would make the Electoral College or Senate operate less democratically.
Beginning in 1776, women like Abigail Adams and Phillis Wheatley, Indigenous Americans like Mohegan cleric Samson Occom, and Black Americans like mathematician and naturalist Benjamin Banneker noted that the principles underlying their new country did not apply to them. The new government gave marginalized people the language to seek equal rights, like when enslaved people Elizabeth Freeman and Quock Walker sued for their freedom using the Declaration’s language.
After his 1824 loss to John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson disseminated rhetoric stating that the federal government was a tyranny run by elites. Southern white men increasingly argued that states were the seat of democracy and the federal government imposed “unwelcome values” like recognizing the Cherokee as a sovereign nation. Their emphasis on states’ rights “kept white men in charge” (180); they developed Manifest Destiny as a justification for a “populist ‘democracy’” that took Indigenous lands and enshrined protections for enslavement. In the 1850s, the pro-enslavement officials “rewrote American history,” saying that the Founders “had deliberately established a nation based on states’ rights and white supremacy” (181).
White Southerners said the Founders were “fundamentally wrong” when they declared all men equal; they believed white men were superior. South Carolina senator James Henry Hammond proposed that most men were “mudsills” who had low intellect and few skills. Southern elites thought they were “chivalrous men” with a duty to protect these people, who might be enslaved folks, women, or poor white neighbors.
Proportionately, enslavers were a tiny fraction of the American population, so when northern leaders moved to stop enslavement, they styled it as an attack on states’ rights and democracy. They used fearmongering to spread false ideas about what Black Americans would do to Southerners if freed—“steal” their property and “rape” their wives and daughters—and outlawed books that questioned the system of enslavement.
In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Founders purposely excluded Black people from their definition of “men” and that Congress had no power to stop enslavement’s spread into the west. The northern men who opposed this stance didn’t necessarily support Black rights, but they opposed the wealth and power enslavement created in the South. Abraham Lincoln rose to prominence by arguing that society didn’t progress thanks to a few rich elites, but thanks to ordinary people who worked hard, innovated, and participated in the economy. He believed the government should level the economic playing field. Lincoln and the Republican party “tied equality before the law to the principles of the Founders” (188).
After Lincoln was elected, seven states left the Union, on the basis that the “great truth” of the nation’s founding demanded the insubordination of Black people to white people.
Part 3 dips back in time to the founding era of the United States. Richardson provides context and analysis of the idea of independence at the beginning of the nation in order to frame the successes and failures of the ways the country has historically navigated How to Defend American Democracy and how that informs the “authoritarian experiment” of the 2020s. The first half of this part begins in the 1760s, before the Declaration of Independence was written, and ends when Lincoln is elected and the Confederacy seceded from the Union.
At the very outset of the United States’ founding, Richardson identifies a major contradiction that shaped politics through the rest of the country’s history: The Founders and men who fought in the American Revolution to create a nation of equals “literally owned other human beings. They considered Indigenous people ‘savages’ and women subordinate to men by definition” (155). One of the hallmarks of authoritarianism Richardson discusses in Parts 1 and 2 is the desire to hierarchize people as inherently superior or inferior and then mobilize this hierarchization for political action: In the earlier parts, she ties this idea to Nixon and Reagan’s scapegoating of Black Americans, or Trump’s attacks on Muslim people or BLM protestors. In Part 3, she acknowledges the presence of this ideology in the nation’s founding members.
Richardson then uses this idea to make two points. First, she ties this idea to Trump’s The 1776 Report to show “how leaders seeking to undermine democracy have tied American history to their cause” (156). Politicians who add to The Throughline of Authoritarian Sentiment in US History will represent these unequal aspects of American history as keystones of American history and will represent those seeking true equality as “attacking national principles and reducing white men to subservience” (157). She argues that they reach back to the historical inequality of the founding era and stylize it as the true character of American democracy, rather than an unequal system people should work to improve.
Richardson’s second big point is that while the ideals of democracy and equality were “imperfectly” lived by the Founders in practice, these ideals were still “articulated” in a way that subsequently allowed centuries’ worth of “marginalized Americans” to demand that “the nation honor its founding promises” (158). To discuss how this began to play out, Richardson juxtaposes two of the nation’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. She ties the ideal of equality to the Declaration of Independence rather than the United States’ other important founding document, the Constitution. The Declaration declared “that all men are created equal [...] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (168).The Declaration was the theory on which the new United States planned to operate, while the Constitution was the practice of how it would do so. While the Declaration was aspirational, after the failed Articles of Confederation, the Constitution had to find some practical way to form a system of government that attempted to fulfill what the Declaration laid out.
Richardson traces some ways in which the Constitution succeeded, and some ways in which it failed. Importantly, it created a basis to build upon the liberal consensus, beginning in Lincoln’s presidency. As opposed to its predecessor, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution “was based on the idea that the federal government, rather than the states, was the heart of the new system” (170). This would later empower the government to implement social welfare and protection programs as well as the 13th through 15th Amendments and to move slowly toward the implementation of federally mandated suffrage and civil rights. The Constitution also implemented a system of checks and balances in which the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government theoretically played particular roles in a system where no single governmental entity could hold a monopoly of power.
Richardson points out that the Constitution also failed in its implementation of equality. It counted enslaved people as “three fifths” of a person and upheld the system of chattel enslavement. Further, its representative system—the Electoral College—meant that citizens would not directly vote for a president, but for an “elector” to cast a vote in their interest: Before mass media, there was no political confidence that citizens would “know who was a great thinker” and should therefore be elected (172). To appease certain states, they created a legislative branch where the representatives of one half (the House of Representatives) would be determined by state population, and one half (the Senate) would be made up of two elected officials per state. This aspiration toward fairness faltered first when “partisanship appeared almost immediately” and “the first thing to go was fair representation” (174), and second, when parties in power “would add new, sparsely populated states to the Union” to “make sure they controlled the Senate in order to stop legislation they didn’t like, even if the American people wanted it” (175). Richardson uses these examples to show how from the beginnings of the country, enacting the popular will of the American people into law was subordinate to the desires of those in power to maintain that power.
This desire to keep power led to what Richardson calls “populist ‘democracy’” (181): To keep political power, politicians used the rhetoric of states’ rights to convince “poorer white men” that their “inclusion” depended on “keeping other marginalized people out” (180). The language of economic prosperity was used to justify pushing Indigenous Americans out of their lands for the sake of Manifest Destiny and enslaving Black people. Anti-abolitionists used this rhetoric to convince their supporters that equality for other people would take away from their own freedoms, rhetoric echoed much later by Movement Conservatives and Trump. Richardson’s discussion of the systems of early American government that enshrined this type of inequality sets up her last handful of chapters, which discuss the people who pushed back against these systems in the 1800s and onward.
American Literature
View Collection
Books on U.S. History
View Collection
Challenging Authority
View Collection
Contemporary Books on Social Justice
View Collection
Essays & Speeches
View Collection
Nation & Nationalism
View Collection
Political Science Texts
View Collection
Politics & Government
View Collection
Power
View Collection