The Uncomfortable Foundation: Reassessing the American Origin Story at 250
As the United States approaches the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026, the nation finds itself locked in a fierce battle over its own identity. This milestone, dubbed "Freedom 250" by the Trump administration, is being positioned as a celebration of national unity, featuring expansive plans for a "National Garden of American Heroes" and high-profile public events. Yet, beneath the veneer of patriotic pageantry lies a profound, unresolved conflict regarding the country’s origins—a struggle that pits competing historical narratives against one another.
For many, the debate is framed as a binary choice: a narrative of Enlightenment ideals and democratic triumph versus a critique of systemic "whitewashing" by an administration accused of employing an authoritarian playbook. However, for Indigenous people, this framing is incomplete. By centering the conversation solely on the clash between modern political factions, both sides often ignore the very population whose displacement made the American project possible. A closer examination of the historical record suggests that the "Native question" was not a peripheral concern for the Founding Fathers; it was a central driver of the Revolution itself.
The Forgotten Grievance: Rewriting the Declaration
When most Americans recite the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, they focus on the aspirational promises of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." However, the bulk of the document is a litany of grievances against King George III, designed to mobilize the colonies toward rebellion.
While historical focus often lands on taxation and the lack of parliamentary representation, the final, climactic grievance in the Declaration reveals a more visceral motivation. The text explicitly denounces the King for having "excited… the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
This inclusion is critical. It marks the Founders’ explicit demonization of Indigenous people, casting them as the ultimate justification for their break from Britain. If the American Revolution was fought solely for the abstract ideals of liberty, the presence of this inflammatory language suggests that those ideals were never intended to be universal. The Founders were not just seeking independence from a monarch; they were seeking the freedom to expand into Indigenous territories without the oversight or constraints of the British Crown.
Chronology of a Disputed Frontier
To understand why the Founding Fathers were so preoccupied with Indigenous people, one must look at the geopolitical landscape of the mid-18th century, long before the "shot heard round the world" was fired at Lexington and Concord.
- 1754–1763 (The Seven Years’ War): Known in America as the French and Indian War, this global conflict left the British Empire victorious but financially devastated. The cost of maintaining security in the North American colonies became a significant burden on the Crown.
- 1763 (Pontiac’s Rebellion): Following the war, Indigenous nations led by the Odawa leader Pontiac rose up against British rule in the Great Lakes region. The uprising underscored the danger and cost of further westward expansion.
- 1763 (The Royal Proclamation): In a bid to stabilize the frontier and prevent further costly conflicts, King George III issued the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains. This land was formally reserved for Indigenous Nations.
- 1764–1775 (The Escalation): This Proclamation became a primary irritant for colonial elites. Figures like George Washington, who were deeply involved in land speculation, saw their potential for wealth and power directly stifled by the King’s efforts to maintain peace with Indigenous tribes.
- Pre-1776 (Violent Resistance): Before the Boston Massacre or the events of 1776, backcountry militias were already engaging in direct, violent conflict with British troops over the right to seize Native land. The Revolution, therefore, was in many ways a rebellion of settlers who felt entitled to conquer the interior of the continent.
The "Empire of Liberty": A Foundational Contradiction
The central myth of American history is that the Founders created a pure democracy. The reality is more complex: they created a hybrid system—a democracy for the settler class and an empire for the Indigenous population. This was, in the words of the time, an "Empire of Liberty."
This contradiction is not merely a historical footnote; it is a structural feature of American governance. The U.S. government has historically operated through two distinct mechanisms: one involving constitutional norms, due process, and electoral representation, and another involving the unilateral, often violent, exercise of power over those deemed "outside" the democratic compact.
Supporting Data: The Legal Precedents of Power
The legal frameworks developed during the era of Indian Removal and early frontier warfare have created a "secret" legacy that continues to influence modern executive power.
- Executive War-Making: The authority of a U.S. President to wage war without explicit congressional authorization is frequently traced back to early precedents set during the conflicts with Indigenous nations.
- Birthright Citizenship: In recent years, debates over the 14th Amendment have highlighted the exclusionary origins of American citizenship. Legal challenges to birthright citizenship often rely on the historical reality that Native Americans were explicitly excluded from the 14th Amendment’s original intent, proving that the legal "othering" of groups remains a live issue in American jurisprudence.
Implications for Modern Governance
The "Freedom 250" celebrations will undoubtedly highlight the strengths of the American experiment. However, the reluctance to integrate the Indigenous experience into this narrative serves to obscure the nature of contemporary political tensions. As historian Ned Blackhawk (Western Shoshone) has noted, the failure to understand the full context of the nation’s founding prevents a clear understanding of the nation’s current state.
The issues dominating current headlines—the use of the National Guard in cities, the detention of migrants, the unilateral use of military force abroad, and the debate over who truly "belongs" to the American body politic—are not aberrations. They are the modern manifestations of the "empire" side of the American ledger.
When the administration seeks to define "patriotism" through a specific, curated version of history, it effectively silences the voices that hold the mirror up to these contradictions. By ignoring the role of conquest, the government is not just whitewashing the past; it is failing to account for the mechanisms of power that it currently employs.
Conclusion: A More Complete History
As the nation marks 250 years, the story of the United States remains incomplete. If the democratic origin story is one of liberation and constitutional development, the empire origin story is one of territorial acquisition, displacement, and the consolidation of executive power.
Acknowledging the foundational role of Indigenous struggle does not mean dismantling the achievements of the American Revolution; it means recognizing that those achievements were built upon a complex, often dark, foundation of conquest. Without this full history, the "Freedom 250" commemoration is little more than a performance. True democratic maturity requires the courage to face not just the ideals we celebrate, but the realities we have sought to forget.
Until the United States reconciles its democratic aspirations with its history of imperial expansion, the tensions over power, authority, and freedom will continue to define—and divide—the country. The story of our origins is not just a tale of the past; it is the blueprint for our current political crisis.
