The quote you listed seems like something that which any historian, and any non-historian, would be in agreement.
But you could also argue, and pretty convincingly, that the quote is specious, as that's rarely what happens in history.
For some background, Wood had a bit of a reputation for the past decade (or more) of being very rigid in his interpretations, and evaluations, of history, arguments raised by younger historians, as well as in his reaction when additional sources of information came along that caused many to reconsider things that were thought to be settled history of the American Revolution. His supporters generally backed him, though even they were starting to question his arguments and analysis of newly discovered information. He was passionate, and pretty erudite in his arguments against newer interpretations, or analysis of new information, though not always as convincing as you might think.
He was rather strident in his dismissal of younger historian Woody Holton's arguments in Holton's 2021 book, Liberty Is Sweet: The Hidden History of the American Revolution. I read the book, and saw several presentations by Holton. I also read Wood's arguments against some of Holton's claims. It elevated to the point that they had an online debate in early 2022 (possibly late 2021; I can't recall exactly), which I watched. I felt that if I was scoring the debate, I would have ruled it a draw. Holton made a compelling argument that the American Revolution was started in part, at least by some in the southern colonies, to protect their slave holdings. IMHO, there is some credence to that argument with regard to certain individuals in the South. But I felt that Holton didn't fully support his argument that the protection of slave holdings was a key reason the American Revolution was started. On the other side of the debate, IMHO, Wood was on solid ground in dismissing Holton's broader claim that this protection was a key cause of the American Revolution. But IMHO, Wood also fell short in his dismissal that Holton's point had any value, in that Wood felt that this protection was not a factor at all, by any person, in any colony, for starting the American Revolution.
If you expand this to a broader scale, changing interpretations in history happen quite frequently, as "new" information comes available. A current case in point dealing with the American Revolution: John Adams, about 30 years after the fact, made some claims about what John Dickinson did on a particular day, during and after an argument, at the Second Continental Congress. Adams didn't cast Dickinson in the best manner, and his claims have frequently been cited in history books for the past 220 or so years. In the past year, four letters of Dickinson that nobody knew existed came up for auction -- they had never been mentioned in any history books. And after analysis, the letters appear to make a pretty compelling case that Adams either forgot what happened 30 years earlier, or was doing his best to influence the record to his perspective/way of thinking (Dickinson was dead at this point, and thus wasn't around to dispute Adams's claims, or set the record straight). So a group of leading historians, including the head of the Dickinson Papers Project, and others that had cited what Adams stated (without providing any documentation or collaboration from other Founders), are writing about the "new" information, and their take on it in the upcoming issue of the William and Mary Quarterly, which is one of the leading academic journals on the founding and early American history. I haven't read any of the different essays, but in speaking with one of the historians that wrote an essay for the Quarterly for this project, it's pretty clear that the historians don't all reach the same conclusion on the "new" information. And most of those involved in this project are the elite of the elite in the study of the American Revolution/founding.
History is, to a large extent, always an interoperation. Such, we can say with certainty that the Declaration of Independence was adopted on a specific day, or that a battle took place at a specific location on a specific day. But the hows and whys of these events are constantly being debated. Historians that are at the absolute top of their field, like Wood, make interpretations and claims that are based on all the information they have available at that time. But additional information continues to be unearthed which may support exactly what the earlier leading historians claimed/interpreted, or it may prove that things were not as black and white as the earlier leading historian claimed/interpreted, or it may prove that the earlier leading historians claims/interpretations were inaccurate. I point this out so that folks can perhaps not respond so reactively when something "new" comes out in history, and realize that it's just part of the process.
www.huffpost.com
www.scientificamerican.com
bsky.app
thelampmagazine.com
newrepublic.com
