Newport teen to read award-winning essay at state's Memorial Day ceremony
Rogers High School Senior Grace Rochelle of Newport is shown on the campus of Notre Dame University where she plans to enroll in the fall. (Courtesy of Grace Rochelle)
The 2024 presidential election had not happened when Grace Rochelle wrote an essay for her AP comparative government class at Rogers High School in Newport responding to the question of 'Is America Today Our Forefathers' Vision?'
But her perspective on the growing divide between conservatives and liberals remains relevant four months into the second administration of President Donald Trump. Rochelle sees the lack of political and social connection and collaboration at the national, state and local levels as hindering the country's progress.
Grace Rochelle will read her award-winning VFW Voice of Democracy essay as the featured speaker at the 51st annual Memorial Day Commemoration on Monday, May 16, at 1 p.m. at the Rhode Island Veterans Cemetery in Exeter.
Listen to the audio version of essay here.
'I thought about the issues in America, and I don't really feel like we're in a place where we can be proud, I guess you could say, of where we're at because a lot of issues need to be resolved,' Rochelle said.
History teacher Coleen Turner made the essay a mandatory assignment for her students and gave them the option of recording the essay and submitting it to the 2024-2025 Veterans of Foreign War Voice of Democracy National Scholarship Competition through VFW Post 406 in Newport. Rochelle, a competitive tennis player with three State and All-Division honors to her name, including 1st team All-State this year, was fair game.
'I thought I already did the essay, I might as well do the recording,' Rochelle, 17, a Rogers senior, recalled.
'It took a few tries, or more like 20, 25 tries,' she said. 'It was either too short or too long depending on how I was pacing myself. But I just thought you know why not? We'll see what happens.'
What happened was the VFW Department of Rhode Island named Rochelle the state winner. She won a total of $2,000 in scholarships and received a trip to the 2025 VFW Washington Conference held March 2-6, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
'It was the best trip I've ever been on. It was cool to be around a bunch of different kids,' Rochelle said, adding she made several new friends.
'I got (to be) pretty good friends with Oklahoma and Guam and Louisiana and New Jersey. Those were the four girls I really clicked with.'
Rochelle will read her award-winning essay as the featured speaker at the 51st annual Memorial Day commemoration on Monday at 1 p.m. at the Rhode Island Veterans Cemetery in Exeter to honor service members who sacrificed their lives for our nation.
Gov. Dan McKee, the state's four congressional delegates and state office holders and lawmakers are scheduled to attend. The 88th Army Band of the Rhode Island National Guard will perform and Gold Star Family members will participate in the ceremony.
Rochelle is the daughter of Brian and Carrie Rochelle, both Army veterans who served tours in Iraq. Her parents work at Naval Undersea Warfare Center where her mother is a contracting officer and her father is a contracts manager.
She plans to attend the University of Notre Dame to study political science and economics, with hopes of going to law school and making a career in international politics and government. Her dream job is to become a diplomat for the U.S. State Department or the United Nations.
I thought about the issues in America, and I don't really feel like we're in a place where we can be proud, I guess you could say, of where we're at because a lot of issues need to be resolved.
– Grace Rochelle, 17, of Newport
In discussing this year's VFW Voice of Democracy question with her comparative government students, Turner had them the ideas of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness emerging from the Declaration of Independence and the contradictions over the meaning of equality as applied to different demographic groups.
'It was a good question. It fit in well with my curriculum,' Turner said of the class which looks at six different countries in relation to life in the United States.
Rochelle's award-winning essay takes a contrarian view. She argues that the U.S. has been weakened by divisiveness and that's not what the founding fathers envisioned at all.
'You go back to George Washington's farewell address and he warned about political factions and that's where we are as a society. We have political factions,' Rochelle said.
'I don't necessarily feel like they are a horrible thing, but what political parties do however, is make people close-minded from what I've seen a lot of times. People aren't willing to hear the other side and even consider the other side, and I think that's where the real issue comes.'
The solution, she said, is to somehow bring people back to the moderate side of both parties.
'I do think the majority of Americans are somewhat moderate. They're the less outspoken ones and I think we need to be uplifting the voices of those who are moderates and giving them the bigger platform than people who are far left and far right.'
Turner said Rochelle presented a 'unique voice and a different perspective.'
'It came out really well,' Turner said of Rochelle's essay. 'She's made us all proud. She's going to do great things.'
By Grace Rochelle
When answering whether America today is our forefathers' vision, there may be a variety of responses. On one hand, Americans are still some of the most passionate people when it comes to upholding liberties, democracy, and nationalism. But on the other hand, we have never been more fractionalized, and the divide between conservatives and liberals seems to continue to grow. I will attempt to navigate these complexities and demonstrate that overall, America today is not our forefathers' vision.
The struggle to answer this question is mainly the stark differences between the late 18th century and the 21st century. Our forefathers could not possibly imagine the advancements we have today, especially when it comes to technology, transportation, and media. For example, Thomas Jefferson, a major proponent for privacy and freedom, may find mass surveillance and data gathering disturbing and unconstitutional. Furthermore, the further in time we progress, the more different our country will look compared to when it was founded. So how can we compare values from the late 1700s to today's? I believe that as time progresses, central values may also have to progress and/or change to better fit the people of the time.
Next, we look into what the forefathers wanted for our country. The most important and main issue was independence. In Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary, independence meant, 'A state of being not dependent; complete exemption from control, or the power of others; as the independence of the Supreme Being.' I argue that today, we are greatly economically dependent on other countries through the trade of goods and services which goes against our Founding Fathers' vision. Dependency, such as our large debt to China and reliance on their goods, leads us to be vulnerable to instability if a country were to collapse or eliminate trade with us. Since World War I, the U.S. has taken a sort of overseer role in the world. As a global power, we always appear to aid countries in need, whether it be supplies or money. While this certainly is a morally good thing, it also can undermine what gets done internally.
In addition to the question of our true independence as a state, many of the forefathers were very weary and against the forming of political factions, but today we have not been more divided as a country since the Civil War because of factions. The current split between the conservatives and liberals has seriously hindered the progress of the legislature in this country, divided not just the government but also citizens, and weakens the country's internal strength. The Founding Fathers knew the importance of unity, as they brought the 13 colonies together not just for the Revolutionary War against the British, but also to form a new country. They promoted and inspired nationalism in the colonies and preached that unity was vital to protecting America from external influences. With the constant stalemate we see in Congress, we have seriously fallen behind in making a budget for our country and addressing social and other important political issues. I believe the current disunity in this country is the complete opposite of what the forefathers hoped to continue for America. The internal conflict disrupts the nation's progress and displays our weaknesses to our largest enemies such as China, Russia, and Iran.
Although America today has seemed to have fallen on a different path from what our forefathers were envisioning, we have always and will continue to have fighting spirits. When it comes to civil liberties and social issues, Americans are some of the most vocal out of any groups in the world. While this is one of the main causes for discontinuity, it does show the freedom and pride that people have to improve this country. In the beginning days of our country, the Forefathers wanted the people's voices to be heard, setting up a system to ensure that was made possible. Today we see that same system allowing citizens to protest issues such as abortion and gun laws, without prosecution. That system in the 18th century instilled a sense of identity and nationalism into the new American people and continues to do that in Americans today.
Overall, America today is not our forefathers' vision, whether it be the issue of independence or political factions. And while we have fulfilled some of their manifestations, altogether the drastic difference in society now has prevented their vision from completely continuing. While I wouldn't expect America to be fully on the path of our forefather's vision, I do believe they would feel we seriously need to fix our current system, economically, socially, and politically.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
25 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bloomberg Daybreak: Trump-Musk Feud
On today's podcast: 1) Elon Musk and President Donald Trump engage in a public dispute the traded personal barbs and weighed down Tesla stock and Musk's personal wealth. The dispute began over differences on the GOP tax legislation, with Musk opposing the bill and Trump accusing Musk of being motivated by self-interest. After Tesla shares tanked 14% and Musk's personal wealth dropped by $34 billion, Musk signaled a willingness to cool tensions with Trump, responding to a user's advice to "cool off and take a step back for a couple days" with "Good advice." 2) Tensions appear to be easing between the US and China. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to further trade talks to resolve disputes over tariffs and rare earth minerals. The two leaders had a 90-minute call, during which Trump acknowledged that the trade relationship with China had gotten "a little off track" but said they are now "in very good shape" with a trade deal. 3) Investors brace for a critical May Jobs Report. Traders are awaiting the key monthly nonfarm payrolls report, which may reinforce expectations that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates at least twice this year.

Associated Press
28 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'


Bloomberg
44 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Private Equity in 401(k)s Isn't as Smart as It Seems
Should regular Americans be allowed to put more of their retirement savings into private investments long reserved for the wealthy? The White House is seriously considering the proposal, at the behest of some of the country's largest financial firms. This has never been a good idea. The pitch sounds compelling. Accredited investors — professionals and relatively well-off individuals — have entrusted trillions of dollars to private capital funds, which purport to generate superior returns by locking up money for multiyear periods in assets ranging from infrastructure to business loans. American workers with more than $12 trillion in retirement accounts such as 401(k)s have long time horizons, too. Why not let them share in the riches instead of confining them to publicly traded securities?