Publication Date

9-1-2022

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Journal of Private Enterprise

Volume

37

Issue

3

First Page

25

Last Page

37

Abstract

A new wave of progressive historians have not only challenged older accounts of the American Revolution but portrayed their interpretations as overturning an overwhelmingly dominant mainstream consensus or as revealing ignored but essential aspects of the revolution. These historians sometimes associate their own work with the New York Times’ controversial 1619 Project. In this article, I examine the writings of two such historians: William Hogeland and Woody Holton. In contrast to their popular articles, their purely scholarly works do not in fact support the sweeping factual claims of the 1619 Project. While both these historians have their own unique perspective, focus, and contributions, they in no way are running up against a monolithic consensus or dramatically overturning standard interpretations of the revolution.

Keywords

1619 Project, American Revolution, consensus approach, slavery, William Hogeland, Woody Holton

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License

Department

Economics

Download

Share

COinS