Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What is the historical origin and founding of No Kings Day in America?
Executive Summary
No Kings Day in America does not have a single, universally agreed founding moment; historians point to at least two distinct strands that feed the idea: an 18th-century African American tradition known as Negro Election Day, with earliest recorded celebrations around 1741 that elected a "Black King" or "Black Governor," and earlier colonial-era popular festivities and anti-authoritarian revels, such as the Merry Mount maypole episode associated with Thomas Morton. These strands have been interpreted differently across scholarship and popular accounts, producing overlapping but not identical claims about the origin and meaning of a “No Kings Day” concept in American history [1] [2].
1. A Black self-governance festival that looks like an origin story
One prominent claim ties No Kings Day to Negro Election Day, a colonial-era institution in which enslaved and free Black communities elected a ceremonial leader—often titled “Black King” or “Black Governor”—to represent community interests, adjudicate disputes, and perform ritual functions. Records cited in contemporary retellings date early celebrations to 1741, and scholars emphasize the festival’s roots in West African political and ceremonial culture, its role in community solidarity, and its occasional confrontations with white authorities. This interpretation frames No Kings Day as a survival and adaptation of African traditions that asserted autonomy within slavery’s constraints [1].
2. A parallel story: colonial revels and anti-authoritarian spectacles
Another strand emphasizes seventeenth-century colonial revelry as a precursor to any “No Kings” sensibility. Accounts of Thomas Morton’s Merry Mount and a contentious maypole—celebrated by settlers who clashed with Puritan authorities—have been read as an early American instance of ritualized defiance against imposed moral and civic order. Proponents of this view connect the Merry Mount episode to broader carnival-like traditions that temporarily inverted social hierarchies, suggesting an expressive lineage for later anti-monarchical or anti-authoritarian celebrations, though it is a more diffuse and contested link than the documented Negro Election Day practices [2] [3].
3. Conflicting timelines and anachronistic claims to independence-era symbolism
Some analyses attempt to fold No Kings Day into the Revolutionary-era rejection of monarchy—citing narratives about King George III, the Declaration of Independence, and years 1763–1776—but these accounts often conflate distinct traditions. The Revolutionary timeline centers on political independence from Britain and does not directly document a festival called No Kings Day emerging as a grassroots cultural practice. Presenting the American Revolution as the origin of a festival like No Kings Day risks anachronism by imposing a later nationalist frame onto earlier localized rituals documented in Black communities and colonial revels [4] [5] [6].
4. What the sources agree on—and what they omit
Across the sources, there is agreement that ceremonial elections and carnival-like festivities existed in colonial North America and that these sometimes functioned as outlets for community expression and critique of authority. The strongest documentary support in the provided materials is for Negro Election Day in the mid-18th century as a recurring, named practice. What the sources omit are continuous, direct lines showing that any single festival called “No Kings Day” persisted unbroken from 1637 or 1741 into modern national culture; instead, they show discrete, place-based practices that later interpreters have sometimes merged under a shared label [1] [2].
5. Different agendas shaping the “No Kings Day” narrative
Interpretations vary by agenda: some retellings emphasize Black political agency and cultural continuity, spotlighting Negro Election Day as resistance and self-government; others highlight carnival and anti-authoritarian spectacle to foreground early colonial social dissent. Revolutionary-era framings tend to serve a nationalist narrative linking festivals to independence. Each framing selects different evidence and downplays others: those amplifying West African continuity focus on electoral rituals, while carnival-focused accounts underscore inversion and revelry, sometimes minimizing racialized power dynamics. These competing emphases shape public understanding [1] [2] [4].
6. How historians treat continuity, appropriation, and reinvention
Scholars caution that festivals evolve: rituals can be reinterpreted, reinvented, or appropriated across time. Negro Election Day demonstrates cultural persistence and adaptation within a coercive society; Merry Mount illustrates colonial contestation over public morality. Neither provides an unbroken “No Kings Day” institution identical across centuries. Historians therefore prefer models that recognize local innovation and later reinterpretation rather than a single founding date. Claims presenting one origin as definitive typically rely on selective readings of sparse early records [1] [2] [7].
7. Bottom line for the claim “What is the historical origin and founding of No Kings Day?”
The best-supported answer is that No Kings Day as a named, nationwide institution lacks a single verifiable founding moment; instead, the idea aggregates multiple historical practices: documented Negro Election Day ceremonies from around 1741 and earlier carnival-like colonial festivities such as Merry Mount. Assertions tying No Kings Day directly to the American Revolution are less substantiated by the provided materials. Responsible accounts should distinguish these strands, note scholarly uncertainties, and avoid collapsing diverse practices into one neat origin story [1] [2] [6].