View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Crime against History: Slavery, Race, and 'The 1776 Report'

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Crime against History: Slavery, Race, and 'The 1776 Report'
Language: English
Authors: William V. Trollinger
Source: New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 2025 (186):7-13.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 7
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Descriptors: Politics of Education, Presidents, Federal Legislation, Federal Government, Elementary Secondary Education, United States History, Racism, Nationalism, Patriotism, Slavery, Affirmative Action, Diversity Equity and Inclusion, Misconceptions, Misinformation, State Church Separation, Ideology
DOI: 10.1002/ace.20562
ISSN: 1052-2891
1536-0717
Abstract: With the 2025 executive order, "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling," the Trump administration reestablished the 1776 Commission, which produced "The 1776 Report." This article argues that this report, which is an unsubtle response to The 1619 Project, reveals how White Christian Nationalists wish to mandate that a hyper-patriotic American history be taught (at the K-12 level and beyond). In particular, "The 1776 Report" seeks to whitewash and fictionalize US history as regards race and slavery, minimizing the huge gap between the Founders' ideals and the horrors of slavery (which this report elides). Spending very little time on the Civil War, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow, this report rushes to the 1960s. Attacking affirmative action, so-called identity politics, and DEI initiatives--as well as government social programs and allegedly mistaken ideas about the separation of church and state--"The 1776 Report" seeks an illiberal educational system that indoctrinates students in a right-wing ideology.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1474793
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG6unhRpzhDEC2wkAaFTDiOAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFgUmJmaKyYx_hfc9QIBEICBm_lLwu0yULEnF6DVPO47YShCjFkowrEdkwtSA7LNULkB1S5_X8kBjjxdeYFOBFR3ckN__lnT7816GuXiBnT3SPgOb4ejt18bPoSUhMWItYf5RlGH0yVdL_XxGxswQAdrdAsn8rXWALF9zZSlBNeySlc2_PkCCvm-MpjgPCTV6P56EDIkhS9QhfuvOW44pKiDNnl4zxLrUKkDf83B
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186050065;nda01jun.25;2025Jun23.03:18;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186050065-1">Crime Against History: Slavery, Race, and the 1776 Report </title> <p>With the 2025 executive order, "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K‐12 Schooling," the Trump administration reestablished the 1776 Commission, which produced The 1776 Report. This article argues that this report, which is an unsubtle response to The 1619 Project, reveals how White Christian Nationalists wish to mandate that a hyper‐patriotic American history be taught (at the K‐12 level and beyond). In particular, The 1776 Report seeks to whitewash and fictionalize US history as regards race and slavery, minimizing the huge gap between the Founders' ideals and the horrors of slavery (which this report elides). Spending very little time on the Civil War, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow, this report rushes to the 1960s. Attacking affirmative action, so‐called identity politics, and DEI initiatives—as well as government social programs and allegedly mistaken ideas about the separation of church and state—The 1776 Report seeks an illiberal educational system that indoctrinates students in a right‐wing ideology.</p> <p>Keywords: 1619 Project; 1776 Report; affirmative action; Christian America; identity politics; Martin Luther King Jr; slavery</p> <hd id="AN0186050065-2">Introduction</hd> <p>On 29 January 2025, the Trump Administration issued an executive order entitled "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K‐12 Schooling." According to the order, while parents want teachers to instill in their children a patriotic love of the United States, in the last few decades, they have "witnessed schools indoctrinate their children in radical, anti‐American ideologies" (Trump [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref1">11</reflink>], Section 1). In many instances, children are being "compelled to adopt identities as either victims or oppressors solely based on their skin color and other immutable characteristics"; in other cases, "young men and women are made to question whether they were born in the wrong body and whether to view their parents and their reality as enemies to be blamed" (Trump [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref2">11</reflink>], Section 1). This order seeks to put an end to all of this by eliminating federal funding "for illegal and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination in K‐12 schools, including based on gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology" (Trump [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>], Section 3a). In the place of these "anti‐American ideologies," the Trump Administration seeks a return to a patriotic education that presents "an accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling characterization of America's founding" (Trump [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref4">11</reflink>], Section 2d), makes clear that "the United States has admirably grown closer to its noble principles throughout its history," and conveys that celebrating "America's greatness and history is proper" (Trump [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref5">11</reflink>], Section 2d).</p> <p>Toward that end, this executive order has reestablished the 1776 Commission, which the Trump Administration created on 2 November 2020, and was terminated when the Biden Administration took power. The reestablished 1776 Commission has new and expanded membership, and it will have much more time to impose its will on American education. That said, a close look at the report produced by the original 1776 Commission tells us much about what the Right sees as terribly wrong in how K‐12 schools (and colleges and universities) teach US history and tells us much about how the Right believes this history should be taught. In particular, <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> gives us a clear window into what the Right expects from our teachers and professors when it comes to matters of race and racism in America's past and present. In short, and as we shall see, it is a very short step indeed from the demands embedded in <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> to a White Christian nationalist educational system.</p> <p>Notably, although the original 1776 Commission declared its goal to tell and promote the truth about America's past, it did not include one historian whose work focuses on US history. But just as notably, it was chaired by Larry Arnn, the president of Hillsdale College. This Christian and very conservative college is promoting its 1776 Curriculum to both private and public schools, a curriculum that "emphasizes American exceptionalism" while denying that "racism still permeates American society"; as historian Adam Laats has observed, 'the Hillsdale curriculum is [Trump's] red hat in textbook form' (Kingkade [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>], 16). The original 1776 Commission also included College of the Ozarks president Jerry Davis, who, in his 34 years in that role (he became the school's chancellor in 2021), helped turn the school into a hyper‐nationalistic institution, with—as advertised on its website—its "programs and activities throughout the year that emphasize patriotism"—including "Patriotic Education" courses—and with student organizations "such as College Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom" that provide opportunities for students to "show respect to our nation" (<emph>Patriotic Pillar</emph>[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref7">9</reflink>]., 1). Besides the hyper‐nationalism, the College of the Ozarks is, according to the <emph>Princeton Review</emph>, the most "LGBTQ‐unfriendly school" in the nation (Franek et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref8">3</reflink>], 1).</p> <p>Members of the original 1776 Commission were appointed on 18 December 2020. In one month they managed to produce <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>, which was issued (not coincidentally, as will be seen) on Martin Luther King Day, 2021. As the authors assert in the "Introduction," the Commission has been charged with enabling "a rising generation to understand the history and principles of the founding of the United States." This task "requires a restoration of American education" that is grounded in "a history of those principles that is 'accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling.'" This "rediscovery of our shared identity ... is the path to a renewed American unity and a confident American future." (The President's Advisory 1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref9">10</reflink>], 1 [hereafter, "1776 Commission"]).</p> <p>But as this language suggests, something has gone wrong in America. According to <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>, which lacks even the most basic documentation for most of its claims, "Americans are deeply divided about the meaning of their country, its history, and how it should be governed" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref10">10</reflink>], 1), a division as severe as the disputes that resulted in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. And much of the responsibility for this situation is our educational system. In most of our K‐12 schools, "serious study of the principles of equality and liberty has vanished, the result [being] a rising generation of young citizens" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>], 35) who know virtually nothing about the true history of the United States. According to <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>, this decline in American education began with the advent of progressive education—a traditional bugaboo of the Right—in the late 19th century. As the authors explain, while traditional education "involved conveying a body of transcendent knowledge and practical wisdom that had been passed down for generations" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>], 35), progressive educators rejected the idea that there were immutable truths, instead teaching students (and this remains the norm in American education) that America's founding principles were sadly outdated: "<emph>that's just how people used to think, but we know better now</emph>" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref13">10</reflink>], 35, emphases in original). Having abandoned the idea of unchanging truths, these educators were free to impose their own particular ideologies on their students: "They did not call it indoctrination, but that is what it is" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>], 36).</p> <p>Of course, "progressive education" has its origins in academia. Much of the animus in <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>—and it is not subtle—is directed at higher education; that is, this report is almost as focused on colleges and universities as it is on K‐12 education. According to the authors, "universities in the United States are often today hotbeds of anti‐Americanism, libel, and censorship, [thus] generat[ing] in students and in the broader culture at the very least disdain and at worst outright hatred for this country" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>], 18). While America's founders were determined that the nation's universities instill in its students an understanding of and reverence for American principles and founding documents, today's colleges "peddle resentment and contempt for American principles and history alike, in the process weakening attachment to our shared history" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref16">10</reflink>], 18). The 1960s—a decade that, for the authors, was a disaster for America—were pivotal in this regard, as radical ideologies took hold, disuniting the country by inculcating students in the notion that the only thing to be learned from the past is that it is a story of victimization and oppression: "By turning to bitterness and judgment, distorted histories of those like Howard Zinn or the journalists behind the '1619 Project' have prevented their students from learning to think inductively with a rich repository of cultural, historical, and literary referents" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref17">10</reflink>], 36).</p> <p>Leaving aside for now <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>'s call for respecting "students' independence as young thinkers" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>], 36) it is crucial to note, as many commentators have, that <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> was designed to be a direct rebuttal of <emph>The 1619 Project</emph>. Developed by journalist Nikole Hannah‐Jones and other writers, this Pulitzer Prize‐winning <emph>New York Times Magazine</emph> project "aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative" (Hannah‐Jones [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>], 1). So, it is not surprising that questions of race and slavery are at the center of <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>. According to the authors, historical revisionism of the sort found in <emph>The 1619 Project</emph> "tramples honest scholarship and historical truth, shames Americans by highlighting only the sins of their ancestors, and teaches claims of systemic racism that can only be eliminated by more discrimination" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref20">10</reflink>], 18). This "deliberately destructive scholarship shatters the civic bonds that unite all Americans ... silencing the discourse essential to a free society by breeding division, distrust, and hatred" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref21">10</reflink>], 18). More than this, it "is the intellectual force behind so much of the violence in our cities, suppression of free speech in our universities, and defamation of our treasured national statues and symbols" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>], 18).</p> <p>What violence are the authors referring to? Certainly not the attack on the US Capitol, which took place 2 weeks before <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> appeared. And "defamation of our treasured national statues?" The authors are clearly lamenting the fact that some Confederate monuments have been torn down or defaced. Not surprisingly, seeing the realities and effects of slavery—including family separation, rape, torture, and much more—has led some Americans to not understand Confederate statues as "treasured national statues," but, instead, as monuments celebrating those who fought to keep the enslaved, enslaved (and as memorials designed to keep blacks, who had no say over the creation of these monuments, in their place).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>]</p> <p>But for the authors of <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>, too many 21st‐century Americans understand slavery as a sin unique to the United States: although "it is very hard for people brought up in the comforts of modern America ... to imagine the cruelties and enormities that were endemic in earlier times," the "unfortunate fact is that the institution of slavery has been more the rule than the exception throughout human history" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref24">10</reflink>], 10). But as evinced by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the founding fathers contributed to an emerging "dramatic sea change in moral sensibilities" that culminated in "the Western world's repudiation of slavery" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref25">10</reflink>], 11). In this regard, <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> is most animated in its effort to rescue the Founders from what it sees as dishonest slander regarding slavery: "The most common charge leveled against the founders" is that "they were hypocrites who," in creating a Constitution that protected the institution of slavery, "didn't believe in their stated principles." This "charge is untrue, and has done enormous damage, especially in recent years, with a devastating effect on our civic unity and social fabric" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref26">10</reflink>], 10). As the authors see it, what is dividing and harming 21st‐century America is <emph>not</emph> the long shadow of slavery and the resultant racism—individual and institutional—that is still with us today. Instead, what is dividing and harming America is seeing and talking about the enormous gap between the founders' ideals and the realities of slavery, realities that are conveniently elided in <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>.</p> <p>Of course, the authors have to deal with the bothersome fact that the Constitution incorporated provisions that protected slavery in America. They respond that although the founders knew slavery was wrong, at the Constitutional Convention they agreed to compromises that were designed to allow the creation of a United States of America while continuing to hold their firm conviction that all men are created equal. According to <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>, the 3/5 clause was designed "to prevent the South from counting their slaves as whole persons for purposes of increasing their congressional representation" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref27">10</reflink>], 11), a claim that conveniently ignores how this clause gave Southern states much more power—including greater representation in the House of Representatives—than if their slaves (who had no more rights than oxen) had not been counted at all.</p> <p>Then there was the slave trade: "the Constitution forbade any restriction" of it "for twenty years after ratification—at which time Congress immediately outlawed it." (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref28">10</reflink>], 11). <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> does not mention that not only did the United States government not make great efforts to enforce this provision, but there is no mention here of what became a burgeoning domestic slave trade.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>] Finally, there was the fugitive slave clause. According to the authors, while this was "perhaps the most hated protection of all," what we need to keep in mind is that although this provision "accommodated pro‐slavery delegates," it "did not sanction slavery in the states where it existed" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref30">10</reflink>], 11). This banal statement does not elaborate on what exactly this "accommodation" meant for black people desperately trying to escape the horrors of their condition, nor is there any reference to the particularly odious 1850 Fugitive Slave Act.</p> <p> <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> goes to great lengths to argue that the death of slavery was planted in the country's origins: the "Declaration's unqualified proclamation of human equality flatly contradicted the existence of human bondage and, along with the Constitution's compromises understood in light of that proposition, set the stage for abolition" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref31">10</reflink>], 11). Of course, if this were the case, if the nation's founders were committed to the notion that slavery was wrong, if slavery's end was built into the founding documents, then what happened? Why did slavery not die out? Why was the Civil War necessary to kill it? According to <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>, over the first half of the 19th century increasing numbers of Americans came to reject the idea that all men are created equal. This idea was best articulated in the 1850s by South Carolina's John C. Calhoun, who "rejected the Declaration's principle of equality" as a "self‐evident lie," rights "inhere not in every individual by 'the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God,'" but, instead, "in groups or races according to historical evolution. This new theory was developed to protect slavery—Calhoun claimed it was a 'positive good'" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref32">10</reflink>], 12).</p> <p>The logical implication of this historical claim in <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> is that, at the beginning of the 19th century, most white Americans held to the idea that each human being had inherent rights as an individual. That is, most Americans—presumably including most white Southerners, presumably including most slaveholders—understood that slaves had inherent rights as individuals, even while these slaves were forcefully and violently denied the opportunity to live out their "inherent rights." Given the "logic" of this argument, this meant that at some point, white Americans would live out the truth of the Constitution and conclude that slavery had to be abolished. But according to the authors, with the advent of the notion of "group rights," white Americans—particularly white Southerners—abandoned the inevitability of abolition that was built into the Constitution. As a result, it took a war to eliminate the institution of slavery.</p> <p>Not surprisingly, there is no evidence provided here that at some pre‐Civil War moment in time—1830, perhaps?—some significant percentage of whites (North and South) were committed to racial equality. And pointing to the Declaration of Independence is not evidence for this claim. However, this gap highlights the historical lacuna in this report (and as will be noted later, and despite what <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> claims, "history" is actually not the point here). We are presented with the founders and the founding documents as part of an effort by the authors to rebut the charge that they and their Constitution benefited or bolstered the institution of slavery. But there is no discussion of the slave South, no discussion of the slave economy that benefitted both North and South, no discussion of the realities—of the horrors—of slavery.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>] Regarding the Civil War, there is but one single sentence: "This conflict"—a conflict (according to the authors) between Calhoun's group rights and the Declaration's individual rights—"was resolved, but at a cost of more than 600,000 lives" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>], 12). That is it. Note the passive voice. Note also the failure to observe that the Confederates adamantly maintained they were the ones fighting on behalf of the principles contained in America's founding documents (a point their latter‐day defenders continue to make in arguing that Southerners went to war on behalf of "state's rights").</p> <p>When it comes to Reconstruction and its aftermath, to which <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> devotes but one paragraph, the authors assert that "despite the determined efforts of the postwar Reconstruction Congress to establish civil equality for freed slaves, the postbellum South ended up devolving into a system that was hardly better than slavery" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref35">10</reflink>], 15). Once again, note the passive voice. But the postbellum South did not "devolve"; instead, white Southerners aggressively worked to re‐establish their supremacy (in their words, to "redeem" the South).[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>] Interestingly, and to their credit, in this instance the authors undermine their own passive voice, acknowledging "the violence of vigilante groups like the Ku Klux Klan" that prevented blacks "from exercising their civil rights, particularly the right to vote" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref37">10</reflink>], 15). There is also reference to the establishment of Jim Crow laws, although not a word about how the Supreme Court—supposedly devoted to upholding the Constitution—made possible the creation of a Jim Crow South, no reference to the active willingness of white Northerners to go along with this (and in some places establish and enforce their own Jim Crow laws), and—most important here—no discussion of how supporters of Jim Crow used the founding documents (and the Bible) to make their case.</p> <p>That the authors spend so little time on the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the decades of Jim Crow America (the latter topic also gets but one sentence) reveals that the authors of <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> are in a rush to get to the "horrors" of the 1960s (and beyond). As the authors see it, the decade started very well with Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights movement. King (at least, the King of the 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech) gets a lot of play in this report:</p> <p>When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.</p> <p>According to the <emph>Report</emph>, the Civil Rights movement—"a national movement composed of people from different races, ethnicities, nationalities, and religions"—secured legislative reforms regarding segregation, housing rights, and voting. More than this, the movement "presented itself, and was understood by the American people, as consistent with the principles of the founding" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref38">10</reflink>], 15).</p> <p>This latter claim has no basis in historical reality. In 1963, only 35% of white Americans had a favorable view of King, a number that had dropped to 25% by his assassination in April 1968 (Cobb [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>], 1). I know this to be true from personal experience: the Denver, Colorado evangelical church of my youth hated King and his movement, as did my family (my father exploded when, the night after King was shot, I innocently said at the dinner table that a great American had been killed). More than this, and as Kevin Kruse has observed, these angry opponents of civil rights asserted that—and I also heard this in home and church—their opposition was rooted in their commitment to America's founding principles: "When Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina filibustered the Civil Rights of 1957, for instance, he pointedly recited the entire Declaration of Independence to link his act of defiance to the colonists' acts" ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref40">8</reflink>], para. 8).</p> <p>According to <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>'s historical narrative, the Civil Rights movement very quickly began pushing for programs antithetical to King and his articulation of the principles found in the Declaration of Independence. Driven by the conviction that "past discrimination requires present effort, or affirmative action, in the form of preferential treatment to overcome long‐accrued inequalities," these programs, which involved the "abandonment of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in favor of 'group rights,'" were similar to those "advanced by Calhoun and his followers" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref41">10</reflink>], 15).</p> <p>Again, the authors have strayed far from historical reality. Although they presume (in keeping with many white conservatives) that all we need to know about King is his "I Have a Dream" speech, the fact is that King strongly supported affirmative action as necessary in response to the 350 years of slavery and Jim Crow oppression. And to quote Kruse again, "drawing a straight line from the South Carolina politician Calhoun, one of the most infamous defenders of Black enslavement, to the African Americans who advocated affirmative action as a remedy for that very enslavement is, to say the least, an incredible stretch." ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref42">8</reflink>], para. 18).</p> <p>An incredible stretch, indeed. But this and some of the other historical distortions (particularly, the repeated misappropriation of Martin Luther King's legacy) in <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> have been created by the authors for a specific purpose: to advance their attack on so‐called "identity politics":</p> <p>We have [today] moved toward a system of explicit group privilege that, in the name of "social justice," demands equal results and explicitly sorts citizens into 'protected classes' based on race and other demographic categories ... The stepchild of earlier rejections of the founding, identity politics ... values people by characteristics like race, sex, and sexual orientation and holds that new times demand new rights to replace the old. This is the opposite of King's hope. (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref43">10</reflink>], 16).</p> <p>The attack on affirmative action, DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives, and the like drives much of <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>, as evinced by the report's Appendix III, "Created Equal or Identity Politics?" According to the authors, following the Civil Rights movement's decision to jettison the notion of "colorblind civil rights" came a "radical women's liberation movement that reimagined America as a patriarchal system." And then "other activists constructed artificial groups to further divide Americans by race, creating new categories like 'Asian American' and 'Hispanic'" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref44">10</reflink>], 31). All of this was done with the aim of "dividing Americans into oppressed and oppressor groups," the goal being "to punish some citizens—many times for wrongs their ancestors allegedly committed—while rewarding others," the result being "educational programs" that "use a person's race to degrade or ostracize them" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref45">10</reflink>], 32). While "not as barbaric or dehumanizing," this identity politics has created "new hierarchies as unjust as the old hierarchies of the antebellum South" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref46">10</reflink>], 33).</p> <p>There is so much that is historically (and morally) problematic here, particularly—but not only—the argument that the affirmative action and DEI "hierarchies" are as unjust as the "hierarchies" that existed in the slave South. More than this, it is clear that—given all the emphasis on people being punished or ostracized—the authors of <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> see straight white males as <emph>the</emph> victims in 21st‐century America. But leaving this aside, it is significant that Appendix III concludes with the assertion that it is imperative that "all Americans, and especially all educators ... understand identity politics for what it is: rejection of the principle of equality proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref47">10</reflink>], 33).</p> <p>Although race and slavery are central to <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>, it also promotes a white <emph>Christian</emph> nationalism, a point which is at the core of "Appendix II: Faith and America's Principles." Here the authors assert that the "separation of church and state" does not mean what many people think it means: "the purpose of the founders' ingenious division of church and state was neither to weaken the importance of faith nor to set up a secular state, but to open up the public space of society to a common American morality" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref48">10</reflink>], 25). This "shared morality of faithful citizens" would naturally include "piety towards the Creator whose favor determines the well‐being of society"; although "the most influential part of our nation [now] finds these old faith‐based virtues dangerous, useless, or perhaps even laughable" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref49">10</reflink>], 27), the reality is that "it is almost impossible" to hold to the "proposition of political equality" without "reference to the Creator as [its] ultimate source." That is, "we must remain 'one Nation under God'" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref50">10</reflink>], 28).</p> <p>As is standard for Christian nationalists, the authors—in their reinterpretation of the separation of church and state—work overtime to reject the notion that the US government is a secular entity. Instead, as Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has observed, <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> "incessantly" claims that the government "has a religious basis." But as Boston goes on to point out, there is an obvious problem with this claim: "Our Constitution doesn't say that. In fact, its First Amendment says the opposite" (Hayes [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref51">6</reflink>], 7). That is to say, for the authors of <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>, the US Constitution is all‐important, until it is not.</p> <p>As we have seen, <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> posits that the solution to America's woes involves fixing the educational system, particularly regarding history. "Controversies" about the establishment of the American republic are easily resolved by attending to the fact that America's founding documents address the concerns and hopes of all Americans, regardless of class, race, and religion. That is, if we look closely at our history, we can see that from the beginning of the nation, Americans have sought freedom and justice. If we look closely at our history, we can see that the wrongs in our past—and there are wrongs, as history is the story of actions by imperfect people—"have always met resistance from the clear principles of the nation" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref52">10</reflink>], 1). No nation has ever made such principles "as the formal basis for its politics, and none has strived harder, or done more, to achieve them" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref53">10</reflink>], 2). The result has been "an exemplary nation ... an example to be admired and emulated by nations of the world that wish to steer their government toward greater liberty and justice" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref54">10</reflink>], 1).</p> <p>The goal of the 1776 Commission ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref55">10</reflink>]) is "to restore our national unity by rekindling a brave and honest love for our country and by raising new generations of citizens who not only know the self‐evident truths of our founding, but act worthy of them" (p. 16). Toward that end, American schools must return to an education that is not only about teaching skills, but also about forming citizens who are committed to the American principles. Our "educators must convey a sense of enlightened patriotism that equips each generation with a knowledge of America's founding principles, a deep reverence for their liberties, and a profound love of their country" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref56">10</reflink>], 17). As part of this patriotic education we—schools yes, but also families and popular culture—must "teach an accurate history of our country," an accurate history that will restore our pride in and gratitude "for this incredible nation that we are blessed to call home" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref57">10</reflink>], 20). Although this patriotic education and accurate history includes acknowledging imperfections in our past, "we must stand up to the petty tyrants in every sphere who demand that we speak only of America's sins while denying her greatness" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref58">10</reflink>], 16). In particular, we must turn from the "distorted" histories like those produced by the aforementioned "1619 Project," works that "do not respect their students' independence as young thinkers trying to grapple with social complexity while forming their empirical judgments about it" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref59">10</reflink>], 36).</p> <p>In Appendix IV, "Teaching Americans About Their Country," <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> elaborates on all this, proclaiming that instead of breeding "contempt for America's heritage," our nation's "educational system should aim to teach students about the true principles and history of their country—a history that is 'accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling'" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref60">10</reflink>], 34). Toward that end, the <emph>Report</emph> suggests that teachers assign "core original documents"—as always, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers—for students to read "and then initiate age‐appropriate discussion to surface and consider the meaning of the document" (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref61">10</reflink>], 38). Toward this end, the Report suggests "prompts" that "teachers can use to encourage civic discussion amongst students." Here are two examples:</p> <p>What economic conditions make American democracy possible? Could American democracy under the Constitution be reconciled with any and every economic system? Why does the Constitution protect property rights? Why do critics of American democracy, such as Karl Marx, believe that private property (protected by our Constitution) is the root of injustice? How would Madison and Hamilton have responded to Marx and his followers' criticisms? (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref62">10</reflink>], 39).</p> <p>Students should read the best‐known speeches and writings of progressive presidents Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt on economic democracy. In what ways do they differ from the principles and structure of the Constitution? Would the Constitution need to be significantly amended to fit their proposals? Apart from amendments, in what ways has progressivism changed our constitutional system? (1776 Commission [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref63">10</reflink>], 39).</p> <p>With such leading prompts, it is clear how the authors want students to respond: Free market capitalism is the ideal economic system, and government interventions such as the New Deal are un‐American (There is a palpable nostalgia in <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> for late 19th‐century America, one presumably without Jim Crow). In keeping with so much else in <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>, these prompts give the lie to the calls for teachers to respect their students' intellectual "independence" and to allow them to form their own "empirical judgments." Intellectual independence is precisely what the authors do not want from students, since some of these independent thinkers might read beyond the "founding documents" and conclude that laissez‐faire capitalism is bad for America or that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow are still apparent in some of our institutions (say, the prison system), or that America remains patriarchal (as seen in efforts by Christian nationalists and others to move the United States to a "household" voting system). These prompts simply reinforce what is obvious throughout <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>. With their repeated emphasis on providing us with "accurate history" and "facts," the authors are unabashedly claiming that they have the Truth, a Truth that is obvious to anyone who looks "honestly" at the American past.</p> <p>That is, what we have in <emph>The 1776 Report</emph> is ideology, a Far‐Right ideology, and definitely not history. And for all the claims that what we have now in K‐12 and higher education is "indoctrination," for all the calls that "states and school districts should reject any curriculum that promotes one‐sided partisan opinions," this is precisely what we get in <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>. The goal is not an open, "honest" educational system. The goal is an illiberal educational system that indoctrinates its students with a patently false history. In this regard, the American Historical Association has it exactly right in pointing out that Donald Trump's executive order, "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K‐12 Schooling," provides</p> <p>A blueprint for widespread historical illiteracy. It requires teachers to rely on discredited conclusions that lack professional credibility or even to ignore the work of historians entirely. This includes the notorious <emph>1776 Report</emph>, whose factual deficiencies render it little more than ideological polemic. (Grossman [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>], 4).</p> <p>The reality is that we need more, not less, scholarship that frankly and truthfully addresses the past and present of racism in American life. We need more, not fewer, efforts in public history that frankly and truthfully addresses "the long shadow of slavery" in the United States.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>] Instead of adhering to the false history and ideological strictures of <emph>The 1776 Report</emph>, we would be much better off if we heeded the wise words of W. E. B. DuBois from his monumental 1935 work, <emph>Black Reconstruction</emph>:</p> <p>Nations reel and stagger on their way; they make hideous mistakes; they commit frightful wrongs; they do great and beautiful things ... And shall we not best guide humanity by telling the truth about all this, so far as the truth is ascertainable? (p. 714).</p> <ref id="AN0186050065-3"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref23" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> For more on the history and meaning of Confederate monuments, see: Blight, D. W. (2001). Race and reunion: The Civil War in American memory. Belknap Press; Cox, K. L. (2019). Dixie's daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the preservation of confederate culture. 2nd ed. University Press of Florida; Newsom, R. A. (2020). Cut in stone: Confederate monuments and theological disruption. Baylor University Press; Savage, K. (1997). Standing soldiers, kneeling slaves: Race, war, and monument in 19th‐century America. Princeton University Press; Southern Poverty Law Center (2022). Whose heritage? Public symbols of the Confederacy. Southern Poverty Law Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref29" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> For more on the domestic slave trade, see: Lightner, D. L. (2006). <emph>Slavery and the commerce power: How the struggle against the interstate slave trade led to the Civil War</emph>. Yale University Press; Rothman, J. D. (2021). <emph>The ledger and the chain: How domestic slave traders shaped America</emph>. Basic Books; Schermerhorn, C. (2015). <emph>The business of slavery and the rise of American capitalism</emph>. Yale University Press; Wells, J. D. (2020). <emph>The kidnapping club: Wall Street, slavery, and resistance on the eve of the Civil War</emph>. Bold Type Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref8" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> For more on slavery and capitalism, see: Baptist, E. E. (2014). <emph>The half has never been told: Slavery and the making of American capitalism</emph>. Basic Books; Beckert, S. (2014). <emph>Empire of cotton: A global history</emph>. Alfred A. Knopf; Ford, C. W. (2022). <emph>Of blood and sweat: Black lives and the making of White power and wealth</emph>. Harper Collins; Johnson, W. (2013). <emph>River of dark dreams: Slavery and empire in the cotton kingdom</emph>. Belknap Press; Rothman, A. (2005). <emph>Slave country: American expansion and the origins of the Deep South</emph>. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref36" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> For more on Reconstruction, see: Conwill, K. H., and Gardullo, P. (eds.). (2021). <emph>Make good the promises: Reclaiming Reconstruction and its legacies</emph>. HarperCollins; DuBois, W.E.B. ([2]). <emph>Black Reconstruction in America; An essay toward a history of the part which black folk played in the attempt to reconstruct democracy in America</emph>. Russell & Russell; Foner, E. (2014). <emph>Reconstruction: America's unfinished revolution, 1863‐1877</emph>. Harper Perennial; Gates, H. L. (2019) <emph>Stony the road: Reconstruction, white supremacy, and the rise of Jim Crow</emph>. Penguin Press; Williams, K. E. (2023). <emph>I saw death coming: A history of terror and survival in the war against Reconstruction</emph>. Bloomsbury.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref19" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> As a Ohio Humanities speaker who gives talks throughout the state—at historical societies, museums, and the like—on Confederate monuments and on the Ku Klux Klan, I can attest that many folks in the general public are ready for a frank conversation about "the long shadow of slavery."</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186050065-4"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Cobb, J. C. 2018, April 4. Even Though He is Revered Today, MLK was Widely Disliked by the American Public When He was Killed. https://<ulink href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why‐martin‐luther‐king‐had‐75‐percent‐disapproval‐rating‐year‐he‐died‐180968664">www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why‐martin‐luther‐king‐had‐75‐percent‐disapproval‐rating‐year‐he‐died‐180968664</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DuBois, W. E. B. 1935. Black Reconstruction; an Essay Toward a History of the Part Which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860–1880. Russell & Russell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Franek, R. J., D. Soto, S. Koch, and A. Riccio. 2024. LGBTQ‐Unfriendly. The Princeton Review: The Best 390 Colleges, 2025. https://<ulink href="http://www.princetonreview.com/college‐rankings?rankings=lgbtq‐unfriendly">www.princetonreview.com/college‐rankings?rankings=lgbtq‐unfriendly</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossman, J. 2025, January 30. On the K‐12 Education Executive Order. https://<ulink href="http://www.historians.org/news/on‐the‐k‐12‐education‐executive‐order">www.historians.org/news/on‐the‐k‐12‐education‐executive‐order</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hannah‐Jones, N., and The New York Times Magazine. 2019. The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story. https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619‐america‐slavery‐html">www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619‐america‐slavery‐html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref51" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Hayes, L. 2025, March. " Trump and Christian Nationalists' Renewed Attack on Public Education." Church and State 78, no. 3 : 6 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref6" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Kingkade, T. 2023, July 20. A Small Conservative College is Reshaping K‐12 Education Nationwide. https://<ulink href="http://www.aol.com/news/conservatives‐changing‐k‐12‐education‐191310522.html">www.aol.com/news/conservatives‐changing‐k‐12‐education‐191310522.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref40" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Kruse, K. 2021, January 20. The Trump Administration's Thinly‐Veiled Rebuke of 'The 1619 Project' is a Sloppy, Racist Mess. https://<ulink href="http://www.msnbc.com/opinion/trump‐administration‐s‐thinly‐veiled‐rebuke‐1619‐project‐sloppy‐racist‐n1254807">www.msnbc.com/opinion/trump‐administration‐s‐thinly‐veiled‐rebuke‐1619‐project‐sloppy‐racist‐n1254807</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref7" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Patriotic Pillar. n.d. https://<ulink href="http://www.cofo.edu/Pillars/Patriotic">www.cofo.edu/Pillars/Patriotic</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The President's Advisory 1776 Commission. 2021. The 1776 Report. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp‐content/upload/2021/01/The‐Presidents‐Advisory‐1776‐Commission‐Final‐Report.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trump, D. J. 2025, January 29. " Ending Radical Indoctrination in K‐12 Schooling." https://<ulink href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential‐actions/2025/01/ending‐radical‐indoctrination‐in‐k‐12‐schooling/">www.whitehouse.gov/presidential‐actions/2025/01/ending‐radical‐indoctrination‐in‐k‐12‐schooling/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By William V. Trollinger</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref9"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1474793
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Crime against History: Slavery, Race, and 'The 1776 Report'
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22William+V%2E+Trollinger%22">William V. Trollinger</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22New+Directions+for+Adult+and+Continuing+Education%22"><i>New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 (186):7-13.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 7
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Politics+of+Education%22">Politics of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Presidents%22">Presidents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Legislation%22">Federal Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Government%22">Federal Government</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States+History%22">United States History</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racism%22">Racism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nationalism%22">Nationalism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Patriotism%22">Patriotism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Slavery%22">Slavery</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Affirmative+Action%22">Affirmative Action</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Diversity+Equity+and+Inclusion%22">Diversity Equity and Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Misconceptions%22">Misconceptions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Misinformation%22">Misinformation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Church+Separation%22">State Church Separation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ideology%22">Ideology</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/ace.20562
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1052-2891<br />1536-0717
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: With the 2025 executive order, "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling," the Trump administration reestablished the 1776 Commission, which produced "The 1776 Report." This article argues that this report, which is an unsubtle response to The 1619 Project, reveals how White Christian Nationalists wish to mandate that a hyper-patriotic American history be taught (at the K-12 level and beyond). In particular, "The 1776 Report" seeks to whitewash and fictionalize US history as regards race and slavery, minimizing the huge gap between the Founders' ideals and the horrors of slavery (which this report elides). Spending very little time on the Civil War, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow, this report rushes to the 1960s. Attacking affirmative action, so-called identity politics, and DEI initiatives--as well as government social programs and allegedly mistaken ideas about the separation of church and state--"The 1776 Report" seeks an illiberal educational system that indoctrinates students in a right-wing ideology.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1474793
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1474793
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/ace.20562
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 7
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Politics of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Presidents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Government
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Secondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United States History
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Nationalism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Patriotism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Slavery
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Affirmative Action
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Diversity Equity and Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Misconceptions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Misinformation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State Church Separation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ideology
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Crime against History: Slavery, Race, and 'The 1776 Report'
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: William V. Trollinger
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1052-2891
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1536-0717
          Numbering:
            – Type: issue
              Value: 186
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1