Reframing America: How Public Historians Can Illuminate the Nation’s Evolving Republics

As public historians, we’re in the business of telling the truth—or at least pushing through the myths that have been carefully constructed to hide the more complex, messy reality. One way to do that is to stop treating American history as a single, uninterrupted progression toward democracy. Instead, we need to embrace a framework that recognizes American history as a series of republics, each defined by fundamental changes in government, society, and politics.

Historians like Manisha Sinha have done groundbreaking work in framing American history this way, particularly in her construction of the "Second American Republic," which emerged during Reconstruction. She shows us that the period following the Civil War wasn’t just a minor adjustment or a course correction; it was a re-founding. A complete transformation of the country. A chance—albeit a fleeting one—to create something closer to democracy. And for public historians, this framework of American history as a series of republics isn't just a useful tool; it's vital for understanding how we should approach telling these stories to our audiences.

Deconstructing the Myth of Linear Progress

One of the central problems public historians face is how deeply entrenched the myth of linear progress is in American culture. The standard narrative goes something like this: the Founding Fathers heroically created a democracy in 1776, and from there, everything just got better and better, with minor hiccups along the way. This is the story that gets repeated in schools, at heritage sites like Mount Vernon, and across media. But it’s not the truth.

The first founders didn’t care about democracy, and they certainly didn’t build one. They created a republic designed for wealthy, white men. Period. It was later generations—especially during Reconstruction—who tried to push that limited, exclusionary republic into something resembling a democratic society. This shift wasn’t a natural stage of progress; it was the result of struggle, conflict, and sacrifice by people who saw the profound flaws in the American system and fought to change them.

Why the Republics Framework Matters

For public historians, telling American history as a series of republics allows us to grapple with these transformations head-on. It helps us move away from the celebratory, linear myth and instead present history as something that’s constantly being contested and reconstructed. This framework forces us to recognize that the struggle for democracy has been ongoing, and far from guaranteed.

If we look at the result of the American War of Independence as the creation of the first republic—an exclusionary, elitist one—and Reconstruction as an attempt to forge a second republic—one that included formerly enslaved people, working-class whites, and others—then we can better contextualize the many moments of upheaval and transformation that followed. It allows us to tell a story that isn’t about inevitable progress but about the ongoing fight to redefine what "America" means.

Public Historians as Agents of Honest History

Using this conceptual framework is also critical in the age of resurgent nationalism and white supremacy. Let’s be honest—heritage sites and mainstream history have long contributed to the idea of a single, heroic republic founded by morally pure leaders like Washington and Jefferson. This whitewashed version of history is politically charged, even though it masquerades as "depoliticized" patriotism. In reality, it’s doing the same work of reinforcing white identity politics that fuel today’s divisive culture wars. It’s the kind of history that helped justify the January 6th insurrection, where the so-called "patriots" believed they were defending a pure, untainted America.

By framing American history as a series of republics, we actively counter that narrative. We don’t just passively observe history as some neutral, unchanging truth. We play a role in pushing for a more honest, inclusive history that recognizes the contributions and struggles of people who were actively shut out of the founders’ vision.

The Responsibility of Public Historians

Public historians have a responsibility to push back against the sanitized versions of history that sites like Mount Vernon and Colonial Williamsburg continue to promote. When we tell the story of Reconstruction, for example, we must emphasize that it was a moment of real democratic potential that was crushed by violence, racism, and political sabotage. We need to show that it wasn’t just a failed experiment—it was a republic that, for a time, offered the possibility of something radically different.

By embracing the republics framework, public historians can better communicate the stakes of these historical moments. We show that the republic we live in today isn’t the same one the founders created. It has been rebuilt, transformed, and redefined multiple times, often through conflict and struggle. And, just as importantly, we show that the work of building a truly democratic republic is far from finished.

Moving Forward

Looking at American history as a series of republics defined by changes to government, society, and politics helps us to tell a more accurate, inclusive story. It forces us to reckon with the fact that America’s "original" republic wasn’t a democracy at all and that the efforts to create one have been ongoing for over 200 years.

For public historians, this is a powerful framework. It allows us to tell stories that are more complicated, more truthful, and ultimately more reflective of the real American experience. And in an era where divisive, nationalist narratives are taking hold, it gives us a tool to push back, to offer a version of history that is honest, inclusive, and deeply engaged with the ongoing project of building a better society.

Because, as we know, the republic we’re living in now is just the latest version—and it’s up to all of us to decide what the next one will look like.