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 race and racism fueled the fires of the American Revolution.

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

They might be surprised that the republic exists at all.

Some delegates at the Constitutional Convention wanted a strong executive, while others feared the American president might become a king.

We must see the world as actors of the past did: through a foggy windshield, not a rearview mirror, facing a future of radical uncertainty.

It depends on how you read the Declaration’s “self-evident” truths.

We cannot divorce the independence of the executive branch from its substance.

After peaceful attempts at alliance-building stalled, the Continental Army launched an ill-fated invasion of Quebec in June 1775.

Although the American tradition is broadly liberal, it is best understood as divided between two schools: classical and managerial liberalism.

Despite its failures and limitations, the American Revolution unleashed popular aspirations to throw off tyranny of all kinds.

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.