Gordon S. Wood

Inside the profession, the battle over the 1619 Project continues.

Like the 1619 Project, two new books on the Constitution reflect a vigorous debate about what has changed in the American past—and what hasn’t.

A new way to think about the American Revolution.

The paper’s series on slavery made avoidable mistakes. But the attacks from its critics are much more dangerous.

The United States didn't begin in 1619.

The Editor of the American Historical Review weighs in on recent historiographical debates around the New York Times' 1619 Project.

Critics of the New York Times’s 1619 Project obscure a longstanding debate among historians over whether the American Revolution was a proslavery revolt.

A new book argues that the Revolution was fueled by the racist propaganda of Patriot leaders.

The left is turning its back on the Revolution. Here's why that's a mistake.

The Florida governor’s long-ignored 2011 work, "Dreams From Our Founding Fathers," reveals a distinct vision of American history.

Historians should reject nationalism and help readers to avoid its dangers.

George Kennan made hierarchy seem seductive.

Woody Holton’s "Liberty is Sweet" charts not only the contest with Great Britain over “home rule” but also the internal struggle over who should rule at home. 

The past does not speak to us; we speak for the past.

The project's editor falsifies the history of American history-writing, openly embracing the privileging of “narrative” over “actual fact.”

Why has a relatively conventional history of the War of Independence drawn such an outraged response?

Athenian democracy in the political imagination.

Anti-federalist Luther Martin's agenda failed at the Constitutional Convention, but his criticisms of the Founders may still resonate with us today.

Reflections on the latest public debate between historians about the causes of the American Revolution.

We ascribe too much meaning to the early years of the republic.