Gordon S. Wood, who passed away Sunday at age 92 after being hit by a car, was a highly influential historian of the American Revolution and early American history. As noted in the WSWS, he was “a leading historian of the American Revolution,’ with a career at Brown University and key publications—The Creation of the American Republic, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, and Empire of Liberty—that became essential references for many scholars.
Wood was part of the
final cohort of prominent postwar American historians educated in Bernard
Bailyn's liberal-republican tradition. His work reflected a serious purpose,
meticulous archival research, and the view that the American Revolution was a
true turning point in global history. As noted, his scholarship focused on “the
far-reaching social and political transformations unleashed by the break with
monarchy,” a perspective that, although not Marxist, still captured the
Revolution’s inherent dynamism. Wood’s death marks the passing of a figure
whose work helped define the terrain on which debates over the Revolution have
been fought for more than five decades.
II. The
contradictions of a liberal historian in an age of reaction
Wood was not a
Marxist. His approach focused on ideology, republicanism, and political culture
instead of the material conditions and class struggles behind the Revolution.
He viewed ideas as independent forces and often overlooked the economic and
social conflicts that influenced the revolutionary process.
Wood’s strengths
were inherently linked to his limitations. He was part of a generation of
liberal historians who, despite their theoretical flaws, genuinely engaged with
the Enlightenment, the democratic ideals of the eighteenth century, and the
universalist principles of the Revolution. He opposed the cynical, postmodern,
and racialist reinterpretations that have emerged over the past twenty years.
Tom Mackaman’s
obituary will highlight that Wood recognised a crucial point: the American
Revolution was genuinely revolutionary—a significant global shift. This
perspective unexpectedly and firmly set him against the prevailing ideological
trends that now shape elite academic and media circles.
III. Wood and the
WSWS: A principled stand against the 1619 Project
A key political
moment in Wood’s later career was his open opposition to the New York Times’
1619 Project. When the Times promoted the inaccurate idea that the American
Revolution was fought to maintain slavery, Wood was among the earliest and most
notable historians to dispute this. His 2019 interview with the WSWS, conducted
by historian Tom Mackaman, remains a significant reference in the fight against
racialist distortions of American history.
Wood described the
Project as a “displacement by ideology” and considered the Times’ refusal to
correct factual errors as “an assault on historical integrity.” These were
deliberate statements, reflecting a principled stance by a historian who recognised
that rewriting the Revolution with racialist perspectives served current
political interests.
Wood’s intervention
was important not just because of his reputation but also because of the core
principles he upheld. His life’s work showed how the Revolution “shattered the
hierarchical, deferential social order” and introduced “a new world of
egalitarian aspiration.” The 1619 Project aimed to erase this legacy by framing
the Revolution as a reactionary plot by slaveholders. Wood refused to allow
this falsification to pass unchallenged.
IV. The broader
political context: Identity politics and the assault on historical truth
Wood’s conflict with
the 1619 Project should be viewed in the wider political landscape of the past
ten years. During this period, identity politics has grown among America's
ruling elite, accompanied by deliberate attempts to undermine the Enlightenment
and Revolution's universalist and egalitarian ideals. The goal is to substitute
class analysis with racial essentialism and to hide the revolutionary legacy
that challenges capitalist dominance.
Wood, although a
liberal, understood the peril involved. His involvement in the WSWS’s online
panel on July 4, 2020—during a period of severe political upheaval—showed his
readiness to stand by historical facts, even when it meant opposing influential
institutions. Mackaman’s obituary will surely note that Wood’s position
“deserves acknowledgement and respect,” reflecting his intellectual integrity
at a time when many scholars yielded to ideological influence.
V. Assessing Wood’s
legacy from a Marxist standpoint
From a historical materialist perspective, Wood’s work has notable
strengths and some limitations. He emphasised the revolutionary nature of 1776,
describing the fall of monarchical hierarchy and the emergence of democratic
equality. He also opposed racialist reinterpretations that dismiss the
Revolution’s progressive aspects and upheld the historian’s duty to pursue
truth.
Wood acknowledged his limitations, especially in his tendency to see
ideology as the primary factor in historical change. He overlooked the role of
class forces in driving the Revolution and did not fully grasp the period's
international and socioeconomic dimensions. Despite these gaps, his research
remains highly valuable. Wood’s analysis remains essential to understanding the
ideological and political transformations of the late eighteenth century. His
claim that the Revolution was progressive is largely consistent with the
Marxist interpretation of bourgeois revolutions as key stages in the
development of modern society.
VI. Conclusion: A
historian who stood for truth in an age of falsification
Gordon S. Wood’s
passing represents a significant loss for the field of history. He was part of
a generation of historians who held that the past is knowable, that truth holds
importance, and that the American Revolution was a pivotal moment in the fight
for human liberation.
In the last years of
his life, Wood was compelled into a political conflict he had neither pursued
nor escaped. Confronted with the racialist distortion of the Revolution, he
decided to uphold historical truth. As a result, he aligned—impartially—with
the World Socialist Web Site in a struggle that goes beyond scholarly debate
and addresses core issues of historical awareness.
Tom Mackaman will
publish a more extensive assessment of Wood’s life and work. For now, it is
enough to say that he was a serious historian, a principled opponent of
ideological distortion, and a defender of the revolutionary legacy of 1776. His
contributions will endure.
I. Introduction: A
confrontation forced by history
Gordon S. Wood
generally avoided political controversy. Throughout his career, he focused on
the liberal-republican tradition of American historiography, creating detailed
analyses of the ideological and institutional changes during the Revolutionary
era. However, in the last ten years of his life, Wood became involved in a
political conflict that extended well beyond academic circles.
That struggle
involved confronting the New York Times’ 1619 Project. Wood saw it as a
“displacement by ideology” and believed the Times’ refusal to correct factual
errors was “an assault on historical integrity.” These words reveal a historian
who recognised something fundamental was at stake: the ability to write
truthful history amid ideological manipulation.
II. The 1619 Project
and the rewriting of the American Revolution
The 1619 Project
argued that the main purpose of the American Revolution was to preserve
slavery. This claim was not only false but also historically unfounded. It
reversed the correct timeline of the eighteenth century, overlooked the
significant social changes brought by the Revolution, and turned a major
historical event into a racial conspiracy.
Wood quickly saw the
danger. His career had shown that the Revolution “shattered the hierarchical,
deferential social order” and began “a new world of egalitarian aspiration.”
Suggesting that this upheaval was driven by a desire to defend slavery dismisses
the Revolution’s democratic essence and reduces history to racial essentialism.
Wood’s critique was
based on evidence, not ideology. He was familiar with the archives and the
political debates of the 1760s and 1770s. He understood that the Revolution’s
leaders—despite their contradictions—weren’t rallying the population to defend
slavery but to overthrow monarchy and hereditary privilege.
III. Why Wood’s
intervention mattered
Wood’s opposition to
the 1619 Project goes beyond academic disagreement. It must be understood
within the wider political landscape of the past decade. During this time, the
ruling class has increasingly used identity politics to divide the working
class and hide the core class conflicts in American society. The 1619 Project
served as a key ideological tool in this effort. By framing American history
primarily as a racial story, it aimed to undermine the universal and
egalitarian ideals championed during the Enlightenment and the Revolution.
Wood’s intervention
was notably politically explosive. According to the uploaded document, “What
made Wood’s participation in this debate significant was not merely his
prestige, but the substance of what he was defending.” He supported the view
that the Revolution was a progressive event with global significance.
Additionally, he defended the Enlightenment and emphasised the historian’s duty
to pursue truth. And he did so publicly, on the record, in an interview with
the World Socialist Web Site.
IV. The WSWS
interviews: A turning point in the controversy
The 2019 interview
between WSWS and Wood, led by historian Tom Mackaman, marked a crucial turning
point. It represented the first major public critique of the 1619 Project by a
well-known historian. The interview highlighted the Project’s inaccuracies, methodological
flaws, and political biases. Wood’s relationship with WSWS was more than
casual; he had been interviewed earlier in 2015 and later participated in their
online panel on the American Revolution on July 4, 2020. This ongoing
involvement indicated a deep intellectual connection based on a shared
commitment to uncovering historical truth. The Times responded to Wood and
other historians with arrogance and evasiveness, but the damage was already
done. The Project was compelled to quietly revise key claims, implicitly
admitting that its main thesis was indefensible.
V. Wood’s stand and
the crisis of the historical profession
Wood’s involvement
in the controversy highlighted a profound crisis within the American historical
community. Many scholars, either intimidated by the current political
environment or supporting the racialist ideas of the Project, chose to stay
silent. Others defended the Project even while aware that its claims were
inaccurate. Wood stood firm, refusing to compromise. He emphasised that
historians have a duty to pursue the truth, not to popular ideological trends.
As the document notes, “Wood took the obligation of the historian seriously to
truth.”
This position
inherently put him at odds with the prevailing ideological trends of the
American ruling class. Simultaneously, it aligned him with the Marxist support
for the Enlightenment and the revolutionary tradition.
VI. Conclusion: A
historian who refused to falsify the past
Gordon S. Wood’s
clash with the 1619 Project is a key moment in his later career. It highlighted
the enduring significance of his scholarship, his intellectual integrity, and
the political importance of defending the revolutionary legacy of 1776. In a
time when racist ideology and postmodern relativism threaten historical truth,
Wood’s stance—like that of the WSWS—was brave. It confirmed that the American
Revolution was genuinely a revolution, a progressive, globally significant
event whose meaning cannot be erased by current political trends.
His role in this
struggle will remain an essential part of his legacy.
