Journal of Private Enterprise
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.
1619 Project, American Revolution, consensus approach, slavery, William Hogeland, Woody Holton
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. "New Historians and the American Revolution: Are Their Interpretations Really That New?" Journal of Private Enterprise (2022): 25-37.