Americans seem to agree that social studies education is important for citizens in a democracy, but they have disagreed vociferously about what constitutes the social studies, who should teach it, what methods are most effective, and if different students need different curriculum or instruction. This history of conflict is called the "social studies wars," or a "story of turf wars among competing camps, each with its own leaders, philosophy, beliefs, and pedagogical practices." Though politics and battles over the social studies standards have been the source of much of this conflict, there has been much less time devoted to analyzing the actual reforms scholars and schools designed and enacted in social studies curriculum. This article attempts to move beyond the curricular skirmishes--that is, to go beyond these "social studies wars"--by analyzing the design, goals, structure, materials, and enactment of an important, well-funded and high profile social studies curriculum reform, the Harvard Social Studies Project (HSSP). This study attempts to reconstruct the history of the HSSP from its instructional "inside" rather than its political "outside." That is, it will analyze the HSSP's structure, design, and its grounding in theory and evidence. Such analysis is important because even if there were political consensus around the goals of social studies instruction, a poorly designed or narrowly conceived curriculum might fail to alter instructional practice or improve what students learn.