I. Introduction: A Historian at the Threshold of a Vanishing World
The death of Gordon S. Wood in June 2026, barely noticed in
public life, occurred just before the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of
Independence. The obituary carried by the World Socialist Web Site viewed this
not merely as the loss of a scholar but as an indicator of a deeper cultural
and political crisis. The obituary’s opening remark—“It speaks to the
degradation of democratic consciousness, intellectual life and culture in the
United States that Wood’s death… has gone largely unnoticed”—is more than a
rhetorical flourish; it serves as a diagnosis.
Wood’s life and work illustrate the trajectory of American
academic culture from its postwar peak through its later decline into
postmodernism, identity politics, and the commercialisation of historical
memory. His career offers a perspective on the future of historical
objectivity, the Enlightenment tradition, and the possibility of viewing the
American Revolution as a global historical event.
This brief article presents Wood’s historiographical legacy
not as a mere antiquarian study but as a final, contested safeguard of the
Enlightenment’s universalist ideals against the destructive influences of
contemporary cynicism and racialist mystification.
II. The Formation of a Historian: Bailyn, the Archive,
and the World of Ideas
Wood’s intellectual growth at Harvard under Bernard Bailyn
in the 1960s positioned him as a leader in a major historiographical shift.
Bailyn’s 1967 book, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, argued
that the Revolution was more than an elite power move; it represented a
profound ideological transformation. Building on this, Wood’s 1968 *Creation of
the American Republic* delved deeper into the changing ideas of sovereignty,
representation, and constitutionalism. The obituary highlights Wood’s
remarkable archival mastery: “He seemed to carry the entire world of
eighteenth-century America in his head… the pamphlets, the newspapers, the
sermons, the diaries, the account books.”[1]
This encyclopaedic mastery was not just antiquarianism; it
laid the groundwork for a methodological belief: understanding the past on its
own terms, using its own categories, without being distorted by modern moralism
or identity-based reductionism. Wood’s statement—“The past cannot see the
future”—encapsulates this approach. It opposes the teleological arrogance of
today’s culture, which judges historical figures by standards they could not
have known and criticises them for failing to anticipate twenty-first-century
sensibilities.
III. Against Anachronism: Wood’s Defence of Historical
Objectivity
Wood’s opposition to anachronism was rooted both
methodologically and philosophically. He held that history should focus on
reconstructing past consciousness, rather than projecting current identities
onto the past. The obituary reflects this view: “Such an approach… flattered
the present at the expense of the past… and made true historical understanding
impossible.”
This constitutes the core of Wood’s historiographical
contribution. In a time when history is frequently viewed through a moral lens,
Wood highlighted the importance of viewing the past independently. He opposed
reducing the Revolution to a conspiracy by white male elites, a view common
among identity-centric historians. He rejected the postmodern claim that the
Revolution was just a 'non-event,' and also opposed racist assertions that a
historian’s skin colour affects their historical interpretation. In this way,
Wood’s work defends the Enlightenment principles: that reason, evidence, and
universal human traits—rather than race, identity, or power—underpin historical
understanding.
IV. The Radicalism of the American Revolution: Wood’s
Masterwork
Wood’s The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992)
stands as the highlight of his body of work. It contends that the Revolution
was more than a political separation from Britain; it was a social upheaval
that dismantled the vestiges of monarchical society and ushered in a new era of
republican equality.
The obituary encapsulates this thesis: “What was at stake
was the erosion and eventual collapse of a monarchical society.” Wood’s
dialectical argument states that the Revolution dismantled the hierarchical,
deferential, patronage-centred world of the eighteenth century, replacing it
with a society of autonomous citizens. Nonetheless, this change was accompanied
by contradictions. The rise of a “middling type” of democratic politician—characterised
as energetic, ambitious, and vulgar—supplanted the Founders’ vision of
disinterested republican leadership.
Wood’s tragic sensibility shows in his view of Jefferson:
“He always sensed that his ‘empire of liberty’ had a cancer at its core…” This
cancer was slavery, the contradiction that would eventually cause the Civil
War. Wood’s awareness of this tragedy challenges the notion that he was
indifferent to oppression. Instead, he saw slavery as the unresolved tension
within the Revolution, not its core.
V. Wood and the WSWS: A Convergence of Principles
The obituary clarifies that Wood was not a Marxist. However,
the WSWS saw him as a kindred spirit. Their connection wasn't based on ideology
but shared values: a dedication to objectivity, universalism, and the
revolutionary importance of 1776. Wood acknowledged this bond, and in 2021, he
told the WSWS, “You seem to be the only historian who understands what I was
saying in my Radicalism book.”
This is a significant admission, showing Wood’s recognition
that the academic world had moved away from the Enlightenment principles he
upheld. Meanwhile, the WSWS viewed Wood as a protector of historical accuracy
in opposition to the racialist distortions spread by the 1619 Project.
VI. The 1619 Project and the Crisis of Historical
Consciousness
The obituary highlights Wood’s involvement in opposing the
New York Times’ 1619 Project, which is key to understanding his significance
later in his career. The WSWS describes how Wood, McPherson, Oakes, and Bynum
were criticised as “white historians” whose race allegedly prevented them from
interpreting American history. The obituary includes the racialist reasoning:
Hannah-Jones accused these scholars of being “white historians who could never
understand American history…”, emphasising the racial bias used against them.
This runs counter to Wood’s entire intellectual effort. It
shifts from universalism to racial essentialism, from evidence to identity, and
from historical analysis to moralised tribalism. His collaboration with the
WSWS—through interviews, webinars, and public letters—demonstrated intellectual
bravery. Even later in life, he defended the Revolution’s global importance
against efforts to portray it as merely a conspiracy to sustain slavery.
VII. Wood as the Last Representative of a Vanishing
Tradition
The obituary’s closing judgment is comprehensive: “He
belonged to a generation of historians who believed that the past could be
understood objectively, that ideas mattered, and that significant revolutions
changed the trajectory of human history.” Wood’s passing marks the conclusion of
an era, representing the last prominent figure from a tradition tracing back to
the Enlightenment and earlier twentieth-century historians like Trevelyan,
Namier, Bailyn, and Hill, who held that history is a rational investigation
into the human past. In today’s intellectual climate—marked by cynicism,
identity politics, and postmodern relativism—Wood’s work serves as a
counterpoint, emphasising that the American Revolution was a pivotal event in
the development of democracy rather than a racial plot or a bourgeois myth.
VIII. Conclusion: Wood’s Legacy and the Future of
Historical Understanding
The obituary ends with a prediction: “It will be read long
after the racialist falsifications and postmodernist evasions… have been
discredited.” This is more than just a tribute; it’s a declaration of faith in
history. The Enlightenment tradition that Wood championed is not dead. Although
under attack, it persists wherever scholars, workers, and students strive to
understand and consciously change the world.
Wood’s legacy extends beyond academia, belonging to the
future and especially to the working class, whose fight for emancipation
depends on a clear grasp of the revolutionary past. It also belongs to all who
oppose the degradation of historical awareness and believe in the possibility
of truth.
[1] A
tribute to Gordon S. Wood (1933-2026), historian of the American Revolution-Tom
Mackaman and David North 9 June 2026-www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/06/10/nbsd-j10.pdf
