"What Happened on Jan. 6 Is Far Less Significant Than What Happened Before Jan. 6—and What Has and Has Not Happened Since Then"

"As we approach the one-year anniversary of the violent assault on the Capitol, the prevailing argument on the left and much of the center is that the Republican Party poses a novel threat to American democracy. This is a flawed assessment, which oversells and understates the danger we face."

Corey Robin at Politico issues warnings about minority rule.

"Making This Promise Real Has Been the Work of Generations"

"The new birth of freedom that Abraham Lincoln extolled in the Gettysburg Address required the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which amounted to a second founding. It was this second founding that made the first founding worthy of being saved. Much like the founders before them, those who ushered in a second founding learned from experience, working to improve an imperfect Constitution.  At Gettysburg, Lincoln cast the nation as 'conceived in liberty' and 'dedicated to the proposition that all men were created equal.' Lincoln's effort was to complete the 'unfinished work' of the founding generation. If Lincoln cast this 'unfinished work' as an effort to restore America to its foundations, to a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, this was an effort to return to something real, but that never actually existed—only the promise of it did."

George Thomas at The Bulwark discusses "America's Imperfect Founding."

"Not Designed to Promote Federalism"

"In 'Federalist No. 68,' Alexander Hamilton contended that the Electoral College would frustrate 'the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.' It would also 'afford a moral certainty that the office of President [would] seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.' In addition, it would keep from the office candidates with 'talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity.' In evaluating the Electoral College today, one must judge whether Hamilton's hopes have been vindicated."

G. Alan Tarr at The Atlantic takes on defenders of the Electoral College.

"There Was No Slaveholders' Ploy"

"A good way to summarize what actually happened inside the convention is to recall the place of slavery in the different plans that the convention considered about electing the president.  The delegates weighed three options: the president would be selected by direct popular vote, by Congress, or by electors who would be chosen either by the people or the state legislatures. Direct election failed, but not because it was intolerable to the slaveholders, as Amar maintains. It failed because it enjoyed little support in the convention, for reasons that had nothing to do with slavery. The real choice for the framers was between the congressional method and the electoral method. Both methods gave the slave states an extra measure of power in selecting the president; so once direct election was scrapped, the convention was bound to grant the slave states some sort of bonus. But this was because the great majority of the convention did not trust in the people at large to choose the president." 

Sean Wilentz at History News Network writes that "like most of my fellow American historians, I have been wrong about slavery and the Electoral College."

"Tariffs Are Rigged Against Them"

"In the 1920s, Republicans returned to power and resumed their protectionist agenda, but when crop prices fell, Midwesterners again turned on the party. Chastened by Taft's experience, President Herbert Hoover promised to aid farmers by raising agricultural tariffs. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 did protect crops, but it also radically increased the duties on manufactured goods, provoking a trade war with Europe at the worst possible time. As the Great Depression spread misery across the country, voters blamed Hoover's tariff. In 1932, they elected FDR in a landslide and pummeled the GOP.
"Reduced to a perennial minority, Republicans finally abandoned their protectionist doctrine and embraced free trade. The ferocious tariff debate that had dominated American politics since the nation's founding slipped into the shadows, remembered only by historians and economists.
"Until Donald Trump."

At The Atlantic, Michael Wolraich discusses taxes on imported goods, past and present.

"'Historians Can Never Forget That It Is a Debate They Are Interpreting'"

"Journalist and author E.J. Dionne once observed that we are a nation conceived in argument. None of these were more important than the meaning attached to the Constitution, which played such a central role in creating our sense of nationhood. I would caution my conservative friends from trying to hijack the meaning of the Constitution for their own ends by playing the trump card (no pun intended), that the founders were all in agreement with modern right-wing politics. How could this be true when they didn't even agree among themselves about how to interpret the Constitution? Instead, lets debate the issues of our day so the American people can make an informed choice without resorting to historically dubious claims."

Donald J. Fraser at History News Network asks, "What do historians make of originalism?"

"But the Main Purpose of Militias—North and South—During This Period Was to Suppress Slave Rebellions"

"Throughout the 17th century, almost all the English colonies along the Eastern Seaboard passed legislation prohibiting women and slaves from owning guns and forbidding the sale of guns to native peoples. By the 18th century, gun ownership had become a defining feature of white masculinity in the English colonies and guns played an integral role in Colonial men's public displays of that masculinity.
"The public training exercises Colonial men participated in as part of their militia service were central to such displays and offered opportunities for them to participate in competitions to demonstrate their martial prowess. In many cases, guns were not only central to these demonstrations but were the prize for victory. The commander of the militia in Henrico County, Va., William Byrd, noted in his diary that he made a practice of awarding pistols to the men who won the competitions that took place on militia days. Such guns thus acted as material manifestations of a Colonial man's physical domination of his peers, augmenting his reputation in terms of property ownership and bodily prowess."

Nathan Wuertenberg at The Washington Post explains the origins of American gun culture.

And Thom Hartmann in a 2013 Truthout article explains how slave patrols ended up in the Second Amendment.

"Donald Trump Is Actually Right About Something"

"Let me be clear: I am not a so-called birther. I am a legal historian. President Obama is without question eligible for the office he serves. The distinction between the president and Cruz is simple: The president was born within the United States, and the senator was born outside of it. That is a distinction with a difference."

Mary Brigid McManamon in The Washington Post argues that Ted Cruz "is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States."

Thomas Lee in the Los Angeles Times writes that Cruz "may have to disqualify himself."

"Statesman Are Merely Dead Politicians"

"Figures like Madison and Hamilton negotiated the best deal they could make, then they set out to sell it to the public, correctly calculating that a compromised Constitution was better than none. The Federalist Papers were an exercise in spin—spin in service of a worthy cause, but spin nonetheless."


Jonathan Chait at New York challenges the idea of sanctifying the Constitution.

First Freedom?

"As both Mr. Clinton’s and Mr. Bush’s uses of the phrase suggest, the ostensible reason for ascribing primacy to religion among constitutionally protected freedoms is its place as the first mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Contrary to Mr. Romney’s 'first freedom' claim, the actual Constitution does not say anything about religious liberty except to state in Article 6 that no religious 'test' will be required of officeholders. Nor does the document once use the word 'God,' an omission that some 18th-century Americans decried. ('A Papist, a Mohomotan, a Deist, yea an Atheist' might someday even become president, one critic warned.)
"The First Amendment, adopted four years later in 1791, does protect 'the free exercise' of religion–but only after barring government from 'establishing' religion. Viewed strictly in terms of sequence, the First Amendement’s 'first freedom' might be seen as freedom from rather than freedom of religion."

Peter Manseau at The New York Times questions the emphasis by politicians on religious liberty.

Thru the Perilous Fight

"Historians of the period and of the war may resent Hofstadter’s summary dismissal, but it offers some clues as to why neither is the subject of much popular interest. The very things that put Hofstadter off—the bumbling diplomacy, the bitter infighting, the ineptly executed war effort—force us to confront a vision of the United States that doesn’t generally fit our understanding of its origins. The war plays out as a disappointing second act to the Revolution, with the nation suddenly at the whim of Europeans and Indians and riven by internal dissent, and the heroes and heirs of 1776 acting without the pluck and ingenuity that we expect of them. How are we to commemorate that?"

In Slate, James M. Lundberg observes the War of 1812's bicentennial.

"The New Nullifiers"

"After four years of Civil War, in a 'new birth of freedom' that resurrected the Union, Calhoun’s states’ rights doctrines were utterly disgraced—but they did not disappear forever. Nearly a century later they were exhumed to justify the so-called 'massive resistance' of the segregationist South against civil rights and, in particular, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The current rage for nullification is nothing less than another restatement, in a different context, of musty neo-Confederate dogma."

Sean Wilentz in The New Republic attacks "the current wave of enthusiasm for 'states’ rights,' 'interposition,' and 'nullification.'"

"Without a Single Footstep to Guide Us"

"One area where Wood makes a particularly noteworthy contribution is in tracing the surprise development of America’s democratic identity. 'Surprise' is the word. Too often forgotten is the fact that America’s patrician founders harbored great fears about the 'excesses of democracy.' Though the new country was to be a daring trial in self-government, it was expected to be guided less by egalitarian impulses than by the aristocratic beliefs of well-bred gentlemen. That day, however, was quickly waning."

In The New York Times, Jay Winik reviews Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815.

First Freedom?

"This reading has the advantage of fitting plausibly with the civic republican tradition that greatly influenced the founders. Republicans believed that a professional or 'standing' army could endanger liberty because of its separateness from the people. From the standpoint of civic republicanism, an armed and engaged citizenry was the best way of protecting the national defense. In this sense, the right to keep and bear arms might even be seen as a sibling to the right to free speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Like the latter rights, the former was an important way of promoting self-government, and of reducing the risk that national officials would act on the basis of interests adverse to those of the citizenry itself. On this view, 'We the People' would be sovereign insofar as we could speak out, petition the national government, and defend ourselves. And for committed republicans, participation in the militia is not merely a right, it is a civic duty as well. (There are implications for the idea of national service.)"

In The New Republic, Cass R. Sunstein wades into the murky depths of the Second Amendment.