The historian who moderated the debate, Catherine Allgor, stated she had explicitly discussed with Gordon Wood that the topic would be raised. Glad my friend Woody Holton and his students documented just how widespread the fear among Virginians was of Britain abolishing slavery via Lord Dunmore. Was hoping Gordon Wood made it to this July 4 and the 250th, just as Jefferson and Adams survived until the 50th anniversary.
Fascinating! So the question isn't why was he blindsided, but rather why the argument hit him as it did.
And thank you for engaging the essay in this spirit! The Jefferson and Adams comparison was a generous way to acknowledge the loss without placing Wood's ideas beyond discussion.
Reached out to Woody yesterday and he also had thought of the comparison with Jefferson and Adams, with the same sentiments I had. Also, Wood later acknowledged the country was going through a reckoning on race, and he had underestimated that. Wrestling with the truth is the greatest respect one could pay any historian.
“Big feelings aside, that’s the discipline working as intended.” This was such a great story exemplifying how honest intellectual pursuit of truth and fact strengthens the narrative for all to see and appreciate. Changing one’s mind is hard especially as we age. To acknowledge a lack of understanding from a place of elite(male) authority at his stage of life is a credit to his legacy and to “the discipline” he and you represent. Great read and loved the title!
Hmm. In the essay, I describe Wood as one of the defining interpreters of the American Revolution and credit his work with shaping how a generation of scholars understood the founding era. The clash between Wood and the 1619 Project was one of the most significant public historiographical debates of the last decade, and Wood's role in it remains inseparable from the story.
You may think my interpretation of his late career, which is what I found myself thinking about when I heard the news, is wrong, but that's an argument about history, not taste.
"How Do You Like Them Apples," she titled the essay about the recently-dead guy, before dunking on him for not following Twitter when he was 90.
Holton was wildly out of line at that debate laying the entire responsibility for the (entirely predictable) conservative response to the 1619 Project at Wood's feet, when all the man did was what historians do: write about his interpretation of his research. That was not a historical "debate," it was ideological bullying.
For what it's worth, I absolutely find the 1619 Project to be a worthy entry into the historiographical debate, even if I don't agree with many aspects of it. It's not the ideology that bothers me, it's the grave dancing. You didn't defeat the final boss of yesteryear's historiography; an old man got killed in a car crash.
The historian who moderated the debate, Catherine Allgor, stated she had explicitly discussed with Gordon Wood that the topic would be raised. Glad my friend Woody Holton and his students documented just how widespread the fear among Virginians was of Britain abolishing slavery via Lord Dunmore. Was hoping Gordon Wood made it to this July 4 and the 250th, just as Jefferson and Adams survived until the 50th anniversary.
Fascinating! So the question isn't why was he blindsided, but rather why the argument hit him as it did.
And thank you for engaging the essay in this spirit! The Jefferson and Adams comparison was a generous way to acknowledge the loss without placing Wood's ideas beyond discussion.
Reached out to Woody yesterday and he also had thought of the comparison with Jefferson and Adams, with the same sentiments I had. Also, Wood later acknowledged the country was going through a reckoning on race, and he had underestimated that. Wrestling with the truth is the greatest respect one could pay any historian.
“Big feelings aside, that’s the discipline working as intended.” This was such a great story exemplifying how honest intellectual pursuit of truth and fact strengthens the narrative for all to see and appreciate. Changing one’s mind is hard especially as we age. To acknowledge a lack of understanding from a place of elite(male) authority at his stage of life is a credit to his legacy and to “the discipline” he and you represent. Great read and loved the title!
This post is in incredibly poor taste
Hmm. In the essay, I describe Wood as one of the defining interpreters of the American Revolution and credit his work with shaping how a generation of scholars understood the founding era. The clash between Wood and the 1619 Project was one of the most significant public historiographical debates of the last decade, and Wood's role in it remains inseparable from the story.
You may think my interpretation of his late career, which is what I found myself thinking about when I heard the news, is wrong, but that's an argument about history, not taste.
"How Do You Like Them Apples," she titled the essay about the recently-dead guy, before dunking on him for not following Twitter when he was 90.
Holton was wildly out of line at that debate laying the entire responsibility for the (entirely predictable) conservative response to the 1619 Project at Wood's feet, when all the man did was what historians do: write about his interpretation of his research. That was not a historical "debate," it was ideological bullying.
For what it's worth, I absolutely find the 1619 Project to be a worthy entry into the historiographical debate, even if I don't agree with many aspects of it. It's not the ideology that bothers me, it's the grave dancing. You didn't defeat the final boss of yesteryear's historiography; an old man got killed in a car crash.
Trust me, it's about taste.