Gerald Horne’s The Counter-Revolution of 1776 has been
praised in some academic and media circles as offering a radical
reinterpretation of the American Revolution. However, it exemplifies what
Trotsky termed “the Stalin school of falsification”—a tactic in which the past
is not thoroughly examined but is instead reshaped to align with current
political agendas. The book’s main argument—that the American Revolution was a
pro-slavery counter-movement opposing an abolitionist British Empire—is not
only false but also a politically driven reversal of history, achieved through
repeated misquoting, misattribution, and the intentional omission of evidence
that contradicts its narrative.
Horne's thesis does not hold up under scrutiny; the book is
largely a work of fiction. This article aims to do two things: first, to reveal
the falsehoods underlying Horne’s narrative; second, to place his approach
within the wider context of racialist political ideology in the U.S., as
exemplified by the 1619 Project and its associated pseudo-left supporters.
The Historical Record and the Fabrication of a Pro‑Slavery
Revolution
The American Revolution arose from intensified conflicts
between the colonies and Britain over issues like taxation, sovereignty, and
representation. This is supported by extensive historical evidence, including
the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townshend Acts of 1767, the Boston Tea Party of
1773, the Intolerable Acts of 1774, and the ongoing debate over Parliament’s
authority. Notably, none of the key revolutionary texts refers to the Somerset
case or British abolitionism.
This is a decisive point. The Somerset ruling of
1772—Horne’s key case—was a narrow legal decision about the status of an
enslaved man brought to England. It did not end slavery across the empire, did
not spark an abolitionist movement (which was non-existent then), and was not
part of the political focus of the revolutionary generation. By 1772, the
revolutionary crisis was already in progress.
Horne’s thesis asks the reader to accept that the colonists
fought for independence to safeguard slavery from a British Empire that
wouldn't abolish it for another sixty-one years (1833). This is not a
historical fact but a conspiracy theory cloaked in academic language.
The Method of Falsification: Inversion, Omission, and
Fabrication
Horne's book contains a series of egregious distortions that
reveal not error but method.
1. Inversion of Sources
Horne quotes a Virginia Gazette letter as if it defended
slavery. In reality, the full text is a “blistering attack on the absurdity
of enslaving people based on skin colour.” This is not a mistake. It is an
inversion of meaning.
2. Misattribution
Horne attributes a Loyalist pamphlet to the revolutionary
William Henry Drayton, claiming Drayton was “apoplectic” about Somerset. An
anonymous Loyalist wrote the words. This transforms a pro‑British argument into
an anti‑British one.
3. Erasure of Abolitionists
Benjamin Franklin—who published anti‑slavery essays,
collaborated with Granville Sharp, and later led the Pennsylvania Abolition
Society—is portrayed as a pro‑slavery figure. This requires suppressing
Franklin’s own writings, including his attack on slavery in the London
Chronicle.
4. Factual Incompetence
The Gaspee Affair is mangled beyond recognition. Horne
claims the Gaspee was a slave ship arriving from Africa. It was a customs
enforcement vessel that had been patrolling American waters for years.
5. Suppression of Contradictory Evidence
Rhode Island is depicted as a slaveholding stronghold
rebelling to protect slavery. Horne omits that Rhode Island banned slave
importation in 1774 and passed gradual emancipation in 1784—explicitly linking
these measures to revolutionary ideals.
These are not just occasional mistakes but part of a
consistent pattern: each distortion steers the narrative toward a preset
conclusion. This isn’t genuine scholarship; it amounts to propaganda.
The Political Function of Horne’s Narrative
The political context of Horne’s book involves his
association with the Communist Party USA, which has ties to Stalinism.
Stalinist ideology has a history of distorting facts, not as a personal
critique of Horne but as an analysis of his approach. Historically, Stalinism
has consistently manipulated history—up from the Moscow Trials to the
reinterpretation of the October Revolution—to serve political objectives.
Horne’s methodology reflects this pattern.
The modern importance of The Counter-Revolution of 1776 is
not about Stalinism itself but about how it aligns with the racialist politics
of the American pseudo-left. The book’s positive reviews from outlets like the
New York Times, The Guardian, Democracy Now!, and academic journals show its
usefulness for a political agenda that prioritises race over class as the key
lens for analysing history.
The 1619 Project, citing Horne as a primary source, clearly
exemplifies this pattern. It's claimed that the Revolution was fought to
preserve slavery, which is directly drawn from Horne’s biased interpretations.
The intention isn't to enhance historical knowledge but to deepen racial
divisions within the working class. They serve as tools to split the working
class along racial lines—replacing race with class as the main driver of
history.
The Marxist Interpretation: Revolution, Class, and
Historical Development
Countering this misconception, the Marxist perspective views
the American Revolution as a bourgeois-democratic uprising. Marx and Engels
recognised that the Revolution overthrew feudal property systems in North
America, increased the political power of the emerging bourgeoisie, was closely
linked to Enlightenment ideas, and inspired both the French Revolution and
other democratic movements.
Instead of dismissing the contradiction of slavery, this
view considers it as part of broader social relations. The Revolution spurred
forces that challenged slavery's foundations: Northern states abolished slavery
during and after the war, anti-slavery sentiments grew rapidly in the 1780s and
1790s, and the Revolution laid the groundwork for the Civil War, called the
“Second American Revolution,” which ended chattel slavery. This perspective is
dialectical, not moralistic. It emphasises that revolutions are complex
processes driven by class forces, not racial essences.
V. Horne’s Methodology: A Marxist Critique
Horne’s methodology is the antithesis of Marxism. It is characterised
by:
1. Idealism
Horne treats race as the primary motor of history,
independent of material conditions. This is a retreat into pre‑Marxist, quasi‑theological
thinking.
2. Presentism
He projects contemporary racial politics backwards into the
18th century, reading modern anxieties into historical actors who did not share
them.
3. Source Manipulation
Rather than deriving conclusions from evidence, he reshapes
evidence to fit conclusions. This is the hallmark of Stalinist historiography.
4. Rejection of Class Analysis
The class struggle—central to any Marxist account—is absent.
The Revolution becomes a morality play of white oppressors and Black victims,
not a conflict between colonial bourgeois forces and imperial authority.
5. Political Instrumentalism
History is shaped to serve current racialist politics rather
than seeking genuine understanding. Its purpose is to mobilise resentment.
That’s why the pseudo-left favours Horne’s work: it offers a superficially
radical appearance while backing a reactionary agenda.
Conclusion: The Necessity of Historical Truth for Working‑Class
Unity
The falsification of the American Revolution is not an
academic dispute. It is a political intervention aimed at disarming the working
class by severing it from the progressive traditions of the past. The
Revolution was not a counter‑revolution. It was a decisive step in the global
struggle against feudalism and absolutism. This struggle created the conditions
for the later abolition of slavery and the emergence of the modern working
class.
