The upcoming 250th anniversary of American independence is occurring amidst profound partisan division, with Democrats and Republicans holding starkly different views of the nation's identity and future. This period of intense polarization has led to celebrations that feel less like a unifying event and more like a contentious family gathering.
However, the reaction to the death of historian Gordon Wood in June has provided a glimmer of hope for national unity. Wood, considered one of the foremost scholars of the American Revolution, died at age 92. His passing prompted widespread praise from across the political spectrum, including from Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and U.S. Representative Seth Magaziner, as well as publications like The Federalist Society, The Atlantic, The New Republic, and Reason magazine.
This broad acclaim stemmed from Wood's seminal work, "The Radicalism of the American Revolution." In it, Wood argued that the Revolution was not merely a political event but a transformative force that reshaped America into a democratic society, exceeding even the Founders' original intentions. His interpretation positioned the Revolution as a commitment to ideas, particularly equality, that ultimately fostered the world's first truly democratic society. This vision, Wood contended, defined America not by ethnicity or bloodline, but by adherence to foundational principles.
The Revolution as a Transformative Force
Wood's 1991 book challenged the prevailing historical view that the American Revolution was a conservative affair. He posited it as a momentous upheaval that fundamentally altered American society and subsequent world history. While acknowledging the limitations and contradictions within the Founders' perspectives, Wood argued that the democratic ideals that emerged were an unintended consequence of their actions.
He described the pre-Revolutionary colonial society as a British-style hierarchy, where political power was held by a landed gentry. This class held distinct social privileges, commanding deference from those of lower social standing. Wood noted that many Founding Fathers, while Enlightenment rationalists, were part of this elite, believing society should be led by virtuous and talented individuals.
This ideology, termed "republicanism," rejected the notion that power should be inherited. Instead, it favored a meritocracy where the most educated and selfless members of society would govern for the common good. However, Wood explained that this "aristocracy of virtue and talent" proved unstable. Rapid westward expansion and immigration, coupled with the rise of merchants and capitalists, democratized the political landscape. Within 50 years of the Declaration of Independence, the ideal of an enlightened elite governing impartially gave way to a more democratic, interest-driven political arena.
This shift also saw the decline of traditional aristocratic ideals and the rise of notions of equal citizenship. The revolutionary ideal that "all men are created equal" proved more powerful than its creators could contain, leading to demands for equality from marginalized groups, including women and enslaved people.
Wood's Vision in Contemporary Politics
Wood's work gained significant influence, reaching both political and popular spheres. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich distributed his book to Republican colleagues, and President Barack Obama awarded him a National Humanities Medal in 2011. Wood's interpretation offered a patriotic and capitalist narrative appealing to the right, while its depiction of the Revolution as sowing seeds of liberation resonated with the left.
In recent years, however, more radical interpretations have emerged on both the left and the right, challenging Wood's creedal vision of American identity. On the right, some, like Vice President JD Vance, advocate for a "blood-and-soil" view of American identity, emphasizing ethnicity and a shared heritage over adherence to abstract ideals. This perspective suggests that America is a distinct place with a particular people and way of life that cannot be replicated by simply changing its population.
On the left, some argue that the United States is fundamentally a reactionary nation, with its history of slavery undermining the ideals espoused by the Founders. This viewpoint, often associated with the 1619 Project, suggests that the nation's true essence is rooted in its original sin of enslavement.
Wood actively contested these views in his later years. He criticized the 1619 Project's assertion that the Revolution was primarily motivated by a desire to protect slavery and penned an op-ed attacking Vance's ethno-nationalist perspective. Wood maintained that the U.S. has always been defined by a set of beliefs, a bond that has held together a diverse nation, a concept he saw as crucial for its future.
Despite the polarization among political elites, polling data suggests that the majority of Americans align more closely with Wood's creedal understanding of the nation. A Pell Center survey indicated that 85 percent of Americans believe the country was founded on the idea of inherent rights, rather than ethnic character. Similarly, a PRRI poll found that creedal values such as tolerance, individual freedom, and belief in the Constitution were considered important by approximately 90 percent of respondents, far more than concepts like "Western Heritage."
These findings suggest that while Americans may disagree on the application of core values like freedom and equality, there is a broad consensus on the foundational ideals themselves. This shared commitment, as illuminated by Gordon Wood's scholarship, could serve as a crucial building block for rebuilding national unity in a deeply divided era.