The revolutionary spirit of the 18th-century United States lives on in this edition of Sir Quarterly Magazine through bold ideas, groundbreaking presentation, hands-on education, and dynamic civic engagement. We invite you to join us in honoring the true past, engaging the present, and inspiring the future.

The Revolution is here.

Let’s Start With The Confederacy

The Iroquois, or Haudenosaunee (“People of the Longhouse”), are a powerful, historically influential confederacy of six Iroquoian-speaking Native American nations in northeastern North America. Originally comprising the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca, they became the Six Nations after the Tuscarora joined in 1722.

Historically, they occupied areas around Lakes Ontario, Huron, and Erie, spanning modern-day upstate New York, Pennsylvania, and parts of Ontario and Quebec.

They formed one of the earliest and strongest participatory democracies, with a council of chiefs managing league matters. Society was matrilineal, with women (clan mothers) playing key leadership roles and appointing chiefs. The name “People of the Longhouse“ refers to their traditional dwellings and symbolizes their alliance, stretching east to west in New York, with the Mohawk as keepers of the eastern door and Seneca as keepers of the western door.

Oral tradition suggests a founding over 1,000 years ago. Historical estimates place the confederacy‘s formation between 1142 and 1451 to stop internal warfare.

The Iroquois Confederacy (Haudenosaunee) influenced American democracy by providing a working model of federalism — a union of sovereign states with a central government — that inspired the U.S. Constitution. Its Great Law of Peace introduced key concepts like balancing power between branches, colonial union against external threats, and, arguably, the protection of individual liberties that informed the Bill of Rights.

Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, “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.”

With its soaring rhetoric about all men being “created equal”, the Declaration of Independence gave a powerful voice to the values behind the American Revolution. Critics, however, saw a glaring contradiction: Many of the colonists who sought freedom from British tyranny themselves bought and sold human beings.

Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, owned more than 600 enslaved people during his lifetime. Beyond recognizing the revolution, this edition of SQ’s 250-year “Semiquincentennial” commemoration is an opportunity to share American history that fully explores the diverse people and complex events of our country’s past.

The debate over what history is and who controls the nation’s narrative remains a partisan lightning rod. Major anniversaries shape public engagement with history. Nearly 50 years ago, historian M.J. Rymsza-Pawlowska showed the 1976 Bicentennial transformed how Americans connect with history and understand our national story. When President Richard M. Nixon tried to steer federal Bicentennial planning toward an unquestioning celebration of American achievement, communities responded with a vision that included a wider range of voices, correcting gaps and silences in the mainstream narrative. Grassroots efforts created thousands of new museums, historical societies, and history programs sharing a more complete story of the American past. These institutions form an important part of today’s history infrastructure, and a broader conception of history has become core to professional practice.

The effort to explore history through multiple perspectives extends to state-level planning. In recent years, 21 states established commissions to plan the 250th anniversary, and 11 more introduced legislation to create commissions in 2022. South Carolina’s 250th commission plans to share history “from all points of view,” including “the beauty and the warts and the terror of it all.” Expanding traditional approaches, Nebraska’s commission will “promote under-represented groups from the American Revolutionary War, including women, American Indians, and persons of color.” Many other states have similarly prioritized diverse perspectives, relying on their history and museum communities to develop the 2026 commemoration program.

When Donald Trump established the “1776 Commission” in the final months of his first presidency to narrowly define “patriotic” history, he omitted mention of the federal Semiquincentennial Commission, which had advanced broad plans for commemorating the American Revolution during his tenure. Similarly, in summer 2020, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas introduced a bill to ban the 1619 Project from schools, as part of a backlash viewing the project (which tells American history through slavery) as insufficiently reverent toward the Founding Fathers and the Revolution’s legacy. Cotton made no mention of the upcoming 250th anniversary despite being an appointed member of the U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission.

At the state level, the disconnect between 250th planning and the wider history wars is even starker. Many legislatures that passed bills to create 250th commissions exploring the full depth of American history have also introduced hundreds of “divisive concepts” bills to restrict teaching slavery, racism, and violence. These bills frame nearly all shameful parts of history as momentary deviations from liberty and progress.

Peter (also known as Gordon, “Whipped Peter”, or “Poor Peter”) was an escaped American slave who was the subject of photographs documenting the extensive keloid scarring of his back from whippings received in slavery. The “scourged back” photo became one of the most widely circulated photos of the abolitionist movement during the American Civil War and remains one of the most notable photos of the 19th-century United States.

On July 4, 1863, the 87th anniversary of American independence and the day after the Confederacy’s high-water mark and the crucial Union victory at Gettysburg, Harper’s Weekly, the most widely read magazine during the Civil War, published an article called “A Typical Negro” featuring three photos of a man called Gordon. The unbylined article had three parts: three woodcut engravings, a three-paragraph biography of Gordon, and a nine-paragraph excerpt from a June 14, 1863 New York Times article. Harper’s reported that Gordon masked his scent from bloodhounds by carrying onions from his plantation in his pockets. After crossing each creek or swamp, he rubbed his body with onion to throw the dogs off his scent, ultimately reaching refuge with Union soldiers of the XIX Corps stationed in Baton Rouge.

The excerpt from the New York Times article included interviews with two pairs of married contrabands who boarded the USS Lafayette near the mouth of the Red River in Louisiana. The refugees described horrific torture on a plantation in Catahoula Parish, including burnings and a form of whipping using a hand saw instead of a livestock whip, wooden switch, or grain flail. Most of the July 4 Harper’s Weekly issue was devoted to Theodore R. Davis’ sketches of the ongoing Siege of Vicksburg.

The Two Americas

At one point, this nation was divided along many lines. Historically, the most important has been race, which sparked the greatest social unrest, including our deadliest war.

Freedom fighter Frederick Douglass wrote an article titled “The Color Line” in 1881, but scholar W.E.B. DuBois is most closely associated with that phrase. DuBois wrote the following prescient statement in his seminal 1903 work, “The Souls of Black Folk”: “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line.” (Three years earlier, he had been a signatory to a document titled “Address to the Nations of the World,” which called for racial equality. Given that DuBois had drafted the document, it’s not surprising that it referred to America’s “color line.”)

CRT is an academic and legal framework developed in the 1970s and 80s that examines how systemic racism is embedded in American institutions — such as legal systems, education, and housing — rather than just being a product of individual prejudice. It posits that racial inequality is maintained through societal structures.

Many recent discussions about CRT have focused on fears and misconceptions rather than on what it is and why it was created. To have open and productive discussions, it’s vital to reach a mutual understanding of CRT and its intentions.

The theory aimed to examine racist systems within law enforcement and criminal justice in the U.S. Despite the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and desegregation efforts, these systems still disproportionately affect marginalized groups, especially Black Americans.

“Critical race theorists saw that the law could be complicit in maintaining this unjust racial caste system within society, but also that it held potential as a tool for promoting justice and racial equality,” Dr. Turner-Essel says. “They wanted to show how the concept of race and the realities of racism had been encoded into the laws and institutions of the nation and were continuing to reproduce racial disparities in almost every aspect of life.”

CRT was created to address racism in the law and work to eliminate it. However, the term has spread beyond law, and its portrayal in media and public discourse has varied widely.

According to a recent article from Politifact, “Supporters describe critical race theory as a collection of ideas, not a single doctrine, that explain why racial inequality and disparities persist long after civil rights laws and court rulings barred discrimination.” This view aligns with the intent behind the theory as indicated by its creators. Alternately, Politifact says, “opponents use it as a blanket label for any discussion of white privilege, and they have encouraged local school districts to forbid the teaching of anything that addresses systemic racism.”

President Lyndon Johnson’s Kerner Commission, which he created to examine the racial divide in America, issued a report shortly before Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968. It says, in part, that America is “moving toward two societies, one black, one white — separate and unequal.” The commission also suggested that the nation would become a “system of apartheid” in our major cities.

That prediction has come true. Our neighborhoods and schools are in a state of de facto apartheid. Several predominantly white enclaves, such as Houston suburbs, have sought to secede from the blacker and browner cities where they reside. This is the inevitable result of misanthropy and a lack of respect for human dignity.

There is a nexus between involuntary racial apartheid and the voluntary ideological separation that is entrenched in our body politic. That body politic is sick with the disease of misinformation and disinformation. America has long had a very unhealthy tendency toward anti-intellectualism; the reality line is the inexorable result. As with climate change, we still have a small — and closing — window to change course.

The Maddening Critical Race Theory Debate

This country recently debated Critical Race Theory (CRT), focusing on whether teachers should be allowed to teach students about the nation’s racial distress in the past.

CRT is an academic and legal framework developed in the 1970s and 80s that examines how systemic racism is embedded in American institutions — such as legal systems, education, and housing — rather than just being a product of individual prejudice. It posits that racial inequality is maintained through societal structures.

Many recent discussions about CRT have focused on fears and misconceptions rather than on what it is and why it was created. To have open and productive discussions, it’s vital to reach a mutual understanding of CRT and its intentions.

The theory aimed to examine racist systems within law enforcement and criminal justice in the U.S. Despite the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and desegregation efforts, these systems still disproportionately affect marginalized groups, especially Black Americans.

“Critical race theorists saw that the law could be complicit in maintaining this unjust racial caste system within society, but also that it held potential as a tool for promoting justice and racial equality,” Dr. Turner-Essel says. “They wanted to show how the concept of race and the realities of racism had been encoded into the laws and institutions of the nation and were continuing to reproduce racial disparities in almost every aspect of life.”

CRT was created to address racism in the law and work to eliminate it. However, the term has spread beyond law, and its portrayal in media and public discourse has varied widely.

According to a recent article from Politifact, “Supporters describe critical race theory as a collection of ideas, not a single doctrine, that explain why racial inequality and disparities persist long after civil rights laws and court rulings barred discrimination.” This view aligns with the intent behind the theory as indicated by its creators. Alternately, Politifact says, “opponents use it as a blanket label for any discussion of white privilege, and they have encouraged local school districts to forbid the teaching of anything that addresses systemic racism.”

Though K-12 schools have been accused of implementing CRT, it is not a K-12 concept. It was created specifically for law schools. However, some K-12 schools have implemented anti-racist and anti-bias initiatives, which critics conflate with CRT due to overlapping goals.

Detractors present CRT as a static concept that permanently casts white Americans as oppressors and Black Americans as victims. However, CRT is not so constrictive. As Dr. Turner-Essel explains, “Psychologically, I understand how being affiliated with a group that has enacted harms could induce an emotional response. However, CRT focuses on the opportunities all people, including White Americans, have to correct the situation by noticing how racism lives within our social systems and actively changing those systems to stop harming people of color.”

Changing harmful racist systems requires open and honest acknowledgment that they exist in the first place. CRT opts to meet the truths that changing harmful racist systems requires openly acknowledging their existence. CRT meets the truths of persistent racial inequality in the U.S. head-on rather than avoiding them. Demands for change target systems, not individuals. “CRT recognizes that racism is foundational to many societal institutions, not just a periodic malfunction, and focuses on ways we can collectively change structures,” Dr. Turner-Essel says. “It does not focus on making individuals feel like ‘bad people’ for being a certain race.” It seeks to recognize the impact racism has had on the experiences of various people of color, including Latinx individuals, Native Americans, and Asian Americans. “CRT challenges white privilege, a primary factor for its resistance, and exposes deficit-informed research that ignores, and often omits, the scholarship of people of color,” Dr. Granger writes. “Contrary to what is often stated, CRT does not suggest any ‘racial’ group is inherently inferior or biased, which would contradict the foundational premise that race is a social construction.”

Ultimately, the social construction of race must be recognized as such: a human concept influenced by culture and socialization, rather than an inherent biological set of characteristics.

How Did the US Become So Great?

America’s greatness is attributed to its unique blend of entrepreneurship, industrialization, and a strong opportunity culture, along with contributions from immigrants. Key factors include pioneering technology and innovation (e.g., flight, the internet), democratic ideals, and resilience in crises.

The U.S. became a global power through immense wealth generation, industrialization during the Gilded Age, and leading the world in technology. It held a fundamental belief that one‘s fate is not limited by background, offering possibilities for success regardless of origins. The nation was shaped by the ideals of its founders, the expansion of freedom by leaders like Lincoln, and resilience during conflicts like the Civil War.

The nation’s strength comes from its diverse population, with roots in Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Historic locations like Ellis Island, Gettysburg, and industrial achievements across the country symbolize American resilience and progress. There is a commitment to spreading democracy and engaging in global affairs.

The United States became a global superpower by emerging from World War II with its economy and military intact, while European and Asian powers lay in ruins. This status was cemented by rapid industrialization in the late 19th century, vast natural resources, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, which left the US as the world‘s sole superpower.

The US transformed into an industrial powerhouse through the expansion of railroads, mass production of steel, and technological innovation, allowing it to surpass European nations by 1900.

The nation was shielded by two oceans, possessed vast fertile land for food security, and held abundant natural resources (coal, oil, iron), providing a secure, resource-rich base for development.

The World Wars (1914-1945)

While World War I signaled its emergence, World War II was the definitive turning point. The US became the “arsenal of democracy”, building unmatched military power and a manufacturing base that did not suffer the destruction seen in Europe and Asia.

The Post-WWII Order: The US created the Bretton Woods system (including the World Bank and IMF) and led in forming the United Nations, setting the global financial and diplomatic rules. Through the Cold War against the Soviet Union, the US built a permanent, global military presence and alliances such as NATO.

In the 20th century, the US took the lead in technological innovation (computing, atomic energy) and expanded its cultural influence (Hollywood, consumerism) globally.  Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US entered a period as the sole, unmatched global superpower, or “hyperpower”.

Current Landscape and  Perspectives

As the U.S. celebrates its 250th anniversary, race relations remain complex and deeply divided, showing both profound progress and persistent inequalities. While the nation is more diverse, with significant increases in Hispanic and Asian populations, substantial gaps in equality remain, often described as an “unconsciously entrenched” form of systemic racism rather than the open oppression of the past.

Immense demographic shifts have occurred over the past 50 years, with a significantly older population and a much higher percentage of foreign-born residents. Despite decades of progress, recent surveys show a sharp divide in how groups view race relations, with 57% of white adults and only 45% of Black adults rating relations as “good” as of late 2025.

Many researchers argue that racism has evolved from overt, individualized acts to a more structural, “unconsciously entrenched” system that perpetuates disparities. Incidents of racial violence continue to impact the national discourse, highlighted by high-profile cases involving law enforcement in the 2010s and 2020s.

The country is moving toward a future where non-Hispanic whites may no longer be the majority, leading to new dynamics and, for some, profound racialization. While residential segregation decreased in the late 20th century, isolation levels for some groups, including Latinos, have approached those seen in the Black community. Opinions on racial diversity are deeply polarized, with 82% of Democrats viewing it as positive compared to 45% of Republicans, according to late 2025 data.

Challenges and Future Outlook

The legacy of slavery and historical inequality continues to affect the psychological and physical health of marginalized communities. Many advocates call for a “revitalized civil rights movement” focused on economic and educational investment to ensure all citizens can access opportunity. Experts speculate the U.S. could move toward a skin-color hierarchy or a “multiracial mélange”, with the divide shifting between those who embrace cultural mixing and those seeking to protect traditional cultural identities.

As the country celebrates this milestone, the ongoing challenge remains to bridge the gap between the American ideal of equality and the lived experiences of its diverse population.