Show or hide comments about the document.
Search over the document's text.
Share the document through social networks or e-mail.
After selecting an area on the page.
...you can:
copy the text
share the segment
comment
cite the document

Fall 2022

ISSN 0890-913X

Volume 37, Number 3

Categories: Fall 2022 | History | American Revolution

New Historians and the American Revolution: Are Their Interpretations Really That New?

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, San Jose State University

Download

e-mail

<< Back to editing
Previous version by
<< Older
Newer >>
Revert to this one

Edit
Cancel
Fullscreen

Show comments
Zoom:
Page: / 13

Line spacing:
Word spacing:

Search:FindClose

search results

TheJournalofPrivateEnterprise37(3),2022,25-37NewHistoriansandtheAmericanRevolution:AreTheirInterpretationsReallyThatNew?JeffreyRogersHummelSanJoseStateUniversityAbstractAnewwaveofprogressivehistorianshavenotonlychallengedolderaccountsoftheAmericanRevolutionbutportrayedtheirinterpretationsasoverturninganoverwhelminglydominantmainstreamconsensusorasrevealingignoredbutessentialaspectsoftherevolution.ThesehistorianssometimesassociatetheirownworkwiththeNewYorkTimes’controversial1619Project.Inthisarticle,Iexaminethewritingsoftwosuchhistorians:WilliamHogelandandWoodyHolton.Incontrasttotheirpopulararticles,theirpurelyscholarlyworksdonotinfactsupportthesweepingfactualclaimsofthe1619Project.Whileboththesehistorianshavetheirownuniqueperspective,focus,andcontributions,theyinnowayarerunningupagainstamonolithicconsensusordramaticallyoverturningstandardinterpretationsoftherevolution.JELCodes:N11,N31,N41Keywords:AmericanRevolution;WilliamHogeland;WoodyHolton;1619Project;consensusapproach;slaveryAnewwaveofprogressivehistorianshavenotonlychallengedprioraccountsoftheAmericanRevolutionbutalsoportrayedtheirinterpretationsasoverturninganoverwhelminglydominantmainstreamconsensusorasrevealingignoredbutessentialaspectsoftherevolution.ThesehistorianssometimesassociatetheirworkwiththeNewYorkTimes’controversial1619Project.Amongtheproject’smoresweepingclaims,whenitfirstappearedinAugust2019,wasNikoleHannah-Jones’s(2019)assertionthat“oneoftheprimaryreasonsthecolonistsdecidedtodeclaretheirindependencefromBritainwasbecausetheywantedtoprotecttheinstitutionofslavery”(p.18).Defendersofthischargerelyheavilyonthe1772SomersetcourtdecisioninBritain,whichfreedaslavebroughtfromthecolonies.ButinDecember2020,evenJakeSilverstein,theNewYorkTimesMagazine’seditor-in-chief,feltcompelledtoreviseandsoftenHannah-Jones’sclaim,insertingthequalificationthatthedesiretoprotectslaveyappliedmerelyto“someofthecolonists”(Mackaman2021b;emphasismine)Thehistorianswhoappearquitesympatheticto

GLIFOS-digital_archive

Metadata [hide]

Title	New Historians and the American Revolution: Are Their Interpretations Really That New?
Authors/Creators:	Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, San Jose State University
Year:	2022
Volume:	37
Number:	3
Pages:	25 - 37
Publisher:	The Association of Private Enterprise Education
ISSN:	0890-913X
Document Type:	Articles
Keywords:	American Revolution; William Hogeland; Woody Holton; 1619 Project; consensus approach; slavery

Citation:
Rogers Hummel, Jeffrey / 2022. "New Historians and the American Revolution: Are Their Interpretations Really That New?." The Journal of Private Enterprise, 37(3): 25-37.