Americans take great pride in our exceptionalism. We think of ourselves as the guardians of democracy, the citizens of a nation without parallel, more moral and infinitely more humane than the rest. We explain away contradictions to our self-image as simply anomalies. But history suggests otherwise. It reminds us that seeds of inequality and injustice took root alongside the love of liberty, that this counter narrative reflects American political and cultural traditions as much as the notion that we are a land of opportunity and a defender of the rights of all.
This “inconvenient truth” pervades the history of the presidency. From the time of George Washington, the national executive embodied the country’s image of itself. Washington represented strength and determination at a time when America sought to secure its sovereignty. His military bearing and experience suggested that the infant nation stood prepared to meet any challenge, whether at home or abroad. His personal ownership of more than one hundred enslaved men and women and his management of many more did not hinder his political ambition in a nation ostensibly committed to freedom. In our own time, he receives high marks in national surveys of the presidency because he shepherded the country through one of its most vulnerable periods. But when ranked alongside other presidents in the single category of pursuing justice for all Americans, today’s sensibilities prevent him from finishing among the top ten.
For better or worse, presidents both reflect and shape national identity. Sometimes they champion America’s espoused egalitarian beliefs, but just as often they act in the interests of one segment of the population. For instance, John Adams supported legislation that expanded the time to citizenship, authorized the deportation of immigrants critical of his administration, and sanctioned the arrest of American citizens for the same offense. This betrayal of the American creed came at a time when two political factions (the Federalists and the Democratic- Republicans) competed for the chance to determine whose vision would prevail in the new nation. The “bloodless” revolution of 1800, which ushered in the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, proved that America could peacefully transfer power from one political faction to another. Yet, women and people of color continued to be excluded from the body politic.
No better example of this contradiction can be found than in the administration of Andrew Jackson. Jackson’s ascendancy to the presidency coincided with the expansion of the electorate and a changing political culture. A son of the frontier, where population growth reflected increasing economic opportunities, Jackson embodied the supposed egalitarian impulse of the era and the region. But the Tennessean symbolized another national inclination as well, one tethered to an ignoble tradition. During his presidency, he championed the removal of the Native American population from the southeastern part of the country, thus making valuable lands available to increasingly impatient white farmers who felt constrained by Native American landownership. The relocation began during Jackson’s administration and continued after he left office, culminating in the transport of tens of thousands of native people. Remembered today as the “Trail of Tears,” some groups lost a quarter of their population along the way. The history of injustices perpetrated against Native Americans continued as one president after another sanctioned, either tacitly or directly, the subjugation of these groups through broken promises, abandoned treaties, and genocidal warfare.
In general, the nineteenth century posed a serious challenge to America’s image as protector of the defenseless. In addition to Indian removal, the first half of the century witnessed the regionalization of slavery as the North gradually abandoned the institution and the South attempted to expand it. The institution gained such acceptance that eight presidents owned enslaved laborers while serving in office. The actions of the abolitionists throughout the antebellum period, and Abraham Lincoln after 1863, helped to shape America’s national identity in ways still experienced today. Lincoln envisioned an America true to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. While he may not have embraced social equality, he nonetheless recognized that all Americans should have the opportunity to improve themselves. His defense of African American freedom, as much as his championing of the Union, enabled him to secure the number one ranking in nearly all modern surveys of the American presidency.
Unfortunately, the presidents who succeeded Lincoln in the decades before the close of the century did little to build on his legacy. Andrew Johnson vetoed legislation intended to facilitate the transition of African Americans from slavery to freedom and withheld support for the Fourteenth Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1875, which aimed to eliminate discrimination, momentarily gave African Americans cause for optimism, only to have it dashed in 1883 when the Supreme Court overturned the measure. In the decision’s wake, racially inspired violence, disenfranchisement, and Jim Crow legislation prevailed, primarily in the South, with little if any pushback by those who occupied the White House. And in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, immigrant groups, especially those from China and Japan, met resistance from American-born laborers who resented the willingness of these newcomers to work for lesser wages. The campaign to exclude them proved successful as one president after another bowed to the will of the people.
In the meantime, the nation reversed its stance on women receiving fuller participation in the political system. After many decades of struggle for equal access to the ballot, they achieved victory when the Nineteenth Amendment guaranteed their voting rights. Theodore Roosevelt had supported women’s suffrage in the 1912 presidential campaign, and Woodrow Wilson, who won the election, expressed support during his first term but did little to move the cause along. During his second term, however, in response to the added pressure brought by women who reminded the country of their sacrifice during World War I, Wilson championed their cause. Within a year, the nation recognized its daughters as worthy partners in government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
If women’s suffrage represented a bright moment in the history of equality and justice in America, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II represented one of the darkest periods since the abolition of slavery. Bowing to pressures exerted after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, which authorized military commanders to designate “exclusion zones” on the West Coast that ultimately led to the internment of persons of Japanese descent, many of them American citizens. The men, women, and children placed in remote camps in the desert remained interned there for the duration of the war.
The Roosevelt administration also faced challenges in its response to African American demands for equal treatment during the war years. Exasperated by the continuing discrimination in employment and in military service, civil rights activist and labor leader A. Philip Randolph threatened to organize a march on Washington. Unwilling to fight a war over inequality at home while attempting to scotch fascism abroad, Roosevelt issued an executive order, which acknowledged that a democracy can be defended only with the help of all its citizens. The order established the Committee on Fair Employment Practices, which sought to eliminate racial discrimination in the defense industry. Discrimination and segregation in the military continued, but Roosevelt’s authorization of the training of black military pilots served as an important step toward African American inclusion. In 1942, he expanded opportunities for women, as well, by signing legislation that created the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps.
The emerging civil rights movement of the war years grew in intensity in the postwar period and encouraged the presidents of the latter half of the century to move the country forward in its commitment to justice and equality. Harry Truman commissioned two studies, one targeting discrimination in civilian life and the other in the military. In response to the two reports the commissions submitted, he issued executive orders that established an antidiscrimination policy for military personnel and desegregated the federal workforce. His efforts led ultimately to the establishment of a permanent Civil Rights Commission and a civil rights division of the Justice Department. Lyndon Johnson’s efforts on behalf of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (proposed by the Kennedy administration) and his “Great Society” initiatives, aimed at the elimination of racial injustice and poverty, sought to aid the most vulnerable Americans by improving education and medical care and by addressing deteriorating conditions in inner cities and rural communities.
The conservative response that followed these efforts, exemplified in the administration of Ronald Reagan, represented a vision of America that embraced individualism and limited government. His record on the pursuit of justice and equality reflected that political philosophy. Reagan’s support of legislation that cut social services left certain groups vulnerable, and his veto of the Civil Rights Restoration Act on the grounds that it abridged the rights of states and businesses won him few supporters in minority communities. In the area of women’s rights, he received credit for nominating the first woman Supreme Court justice and for supporting an initiative designed to eradicate state statutes and federal laws discriminatory to women. However, his opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment led many women to question his commitment to gender equality.
Conversely, the Obama administration touted an increased role for government in addressing social problems. Barack Obama’s support for equal pay for women reflected a recognition that one-half of the American population still suffered economic discrimination despite the essential role they played in the workforce. His commitment to LGBTQ rights (including marriage equality for same-sex couples and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy) confirmed his vision of a society with a broad commitment to inclusivity, not just one that addressed racial disparities. The signature legislation of his administration, the “Affordable Care Act,” sought to ensure that every American, regardless of income or previous health status, had access to medical care.
The Trump administration’s pursuit of equal justice for all is still unfolding. But its stance thus far on immigration, tax reform, health care, race relations, and other issues relevant to the American public has left many concerned that it is initiating a dangerous departure from American values and is creating a new national identity that undermines America’s claim to exceptionalism. As with all things, history will ultimately render its judgment.
For now, the past teaches us that America has always experienced the tension between egalitarian ideals and inegalitarian realities. American presidents have represented and perpetuated both, sometimes simultaneously. After all, presidents are a reflection of who America is—or is becoming—as a nation. Hence, while the current climate understandably elicits serious concerns, it is hardly unprecedented in the challenge it presents to America’s national identity.