Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

America at 250, and the Fourth of July presidents

Gerald Ford

Republicans, including Gerald Ford in 1976, held the White House on the occasion of each of America's milestone birthdays.

Bernard Charlon/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “ A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

This is the latest in “ A Republic, if we can keep it,” a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

An odd pattern has emerged in the history of presidential politics. Every time the United States celebrates a major birthday milestone, a Republican sits in the White House.

When America celebrated its golden jubilee in 1826, Democratic-Republican John Quincy Adams was enjoying his second year as the country’s chief executive. When the nation rejoiced that it had reached its centennial 100 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Ulysses S. Grant was our president. At America’s sesquicentennial in 1926, Calvin Coolidge occupied the White House. And during the bicentennial almost 50 years ago, Gerald Ford was completing his one and only term at the helm.


All Republicans. A bit surprising given the rough parity of Republican and Democratic presidents over the years.

What is less surprising is the particular vision of America they celebrated on those significant anniversaries. It was an America dominated by a belief in Divine Providence, a conviction that the “Almighty God” has sanctified this exceptional nation and that the blessings endowed by the Creator — the blessings of liberty, of equality, of justice, of limited government and of a moral theology based on Christianity — will always resound. America’s “high adventure,” they said, is part holy ordination, part Exodus story.

The words of their July Fourth celebrations tell the story.

Adams experienced the quintessential bittersweet day on July 4, 1826. He rang in the 23rd birthday of his second son, John Adams II, on the very same day he mourned the death of his famous father. I think we can forgive J.Q. Adams for not delivering a July Fourth address that year.

Still, five years earlier, he trumpeted America’s birthday with a most memorable speech. His words presage a common theme among all Fourth of July presidents: “Five and forty years have passed away since this Declaration was issued by our fathers;” he remarked, “and here are we, fellow-citizens, assembled in the full enjoyment of its fruits, to bless the author of our being for the bounties of his providence, in casting our lot in this favored land; and, by the communion of soul in the reperusal and hearing of [the Declaration], to renew the genuine Holy Alliance of its principles, to recognise them as eternal truths, and to pledge ourselves, and bind our posterity, to a faithful and undeviating adherence to them.”

Half a century later, Grant spoke more to the point, even if less eloquently: “It seems fitting,” he proclaimed, “that on the occurrence of the hundredth anniversary of our existence as a nation a grateful acknowledgement should be made to Almighty God for the protection and the bounties which He has vouchsafed to our beloved country.”

Coolidge was over the top in his belief in Divine Providence. America’s prosperity, he insisted, owed its source to a wink from a Christian God. Consider just a sample of his sesquicentennial address at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall.

“[The Declaration of Independence] is the product of the spiritual insight of the people,” he announced. “Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity … will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the father who created [the Declaration]. We must not sink into pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, that alter fires before which they worshipped.”

Ford was a bit more subtle. His Fourth of July address happened in the shadow of the National Archives. “In our Archives and Libraries,” he began, “we find documents to transport us across centuries in time — back to Mount Sinai and the Sea of Galilee, to Runnymede, to the pitching cabin of the Mayflower, and to sweltering Philadelphia in [the] midsummer of 1776.”

Echoing the words of Jefferson, Ford continued: “All human beings have certain rights” and those rights “are a gift from God. … Let each of us, in this year of our bicentennial, join with those brave and far-sighted Americans of 1776. Let us do as they did, with firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, that the future of this land we love may be ever brighter for our children and for generations of Americans yet to be born.”

All four Republican presidents described an America born from a sacred charter and forged by a God-fearing people. Their descriptions reflected the hegemony of a Christian nationalist birth story, one that was no doubt accurate throughout most of American history.

But America has changed. It has changed a lot. That same birth story has become less compelling, less uniting, less resonant. It does not speak to the majority of Americans anymore. First off, the country has seen a steady decline in religious affiliation over the past 50 years. The secularization of America has come mainly from a dip in Christian followers. In fact, this country is less Christian today than at any time in its history. And that has repercussions for the upcoming election and for America’s 250 birthday. Sending the message that all citizens of this extraordinarily pluralist nation should assimilate to a particularized and holy narrative of Christian orthodoxy might have triumphed in the past. It seems sadly anachronistic today.

With hindsight, the America described by the Fourth of July presidents was always incomplete. The U.S. president who celebrates America’s upcoming milestone birthday — the semiquincentennial — must remember that. We should too. As we gear up to vote in a few weeks, and as we consider which candidate might best capture America’s new heterogeneity on July 4, 2026, let us recall the words of America’s greatest political poet, Thomas Jefferson, who said, “Perhaps the single thing which may be required to others before toleration to them would be an oath that they would allow toleration to others.”

Read More

How Gavin Newsom’s Prop 50 is Reshaping California - For Better or For Worse
Getty Images, Mario Tama

How Gavin Newsom’s Prop 50 is Reshaping California - For Better or For Worse

Prop 50 is redrawing California’s political battlefield, sparking new fears of gerrymandering, backroom mapmaking, and voters losing their voice. We cut through the spin to explain what’s really changing, who benefits, and what it could mean for competitive elections, election reform, and independent voters. Plus, Independent CA-40 candidate Nina Linh joins us to spell out how Prop 50’s map shifts are already reshaping her district - and her race.

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas redistricting map
A map of new Texas Senate districts can be seen on a desk in the Legislature.
Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images

SCOTUS Upholds Texas Map, Escalates Gerrymandering Crisis

In the closing weeks of 2025, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court moved our democracy in the wrong direction by clearing the way for a gerrymandered congressional map in Texas to be in place for the 2026 midterm elections in its Abbott v. LULAC decision. Aside from the fact that the new Texas map illegally discriminates to weaken the voting power of the state’s Black and Latino voters, the Supreme Court’s ruling is deeply problematic on a number of other levels.

Most disturbingly, the majority in this opinion takes an appalling new turn on the issue of partisan gerrymandering. To illustrate the Court’s backward slide, consider that in 2004 then-Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote as a concurrence to an opinion in a key redistricting case that, if a state declared it would redistrict with the goal of denying a certain group of voters “fair and effective representation” for partisan reasons, then the Court “would surely conclude the Constitution had been violated.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people with two books, open in front of them.

At Expand Democracy, scholarship is a democratic tool. How research on elections, representation, and governance shapes reform.

Getty Images, Pichsakul Promrungsee

Why Academic Work Matters for a Movement

When I began publishing research on elections and representation, I always imagined the audience as primarily academic - political scientists, methodologists, perhaps a few practitioners who hunt for new data. But as my work with Expand Democracy deepens, I find myself reflecting on how scholarship shapes the public conversation and why academic writing is not necessarily a detour from democracy but can be a foundation for it.

This essay reflects on that specific interaction: how academic work contributes to our understanding of democratic institutions, why it remains essential for reform movements, and how my own research aligns with Expand Democracy’s evolving mission.

Keep ReadingShow less