An excellent work. First of all, this is not a history book; it is a collection of essays on leading individual within a specific historical period. It assumes a great deal of knowledge about the revolutionary period, and uses that to illustrate just who the Founders truly were and what led to and illustrated best their character. It avoids the temptation to apply contemporary values to entirely different eras and thereby is able to capture a much more fascinating picture.

Definitely recommended; I foresee myself revisiting this book with some regularity.

Some of the poli-sci jargon was over my head, but I am glad I read this book.
After reading it, though, I am amazed that America has become what we are today--and that it took only 'four score and seven years' before we erupted into Civil War! --the Founders were as different and at times cantakerous as our modern day politicians and talking heads!

With that said, though, these were some pretty amazing men--one thing that was really interesting, for the Enlightenmnet period--only six (I think that was the number) of the 80-odd signers of the Declaration had formal college education--truly they were self-made men who wanted change. Some were a bit more idealistic than practical (jefferson), some were a bit too smart for their own time (adams), and some were just over-looked much more than i think they should be (Paine and Madison).

I can definitely see this book being part of an American history or poli sci survey class.

“Revolutionary Characters” is really a compilation of essays written by the celebrated historian Gordon S. Wood. It contains eight biographical sketches of some of our nation’s founders—Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Paine, and Burr. He examines, among other things, the impact of the Enlightenment on the founding fathers and why the founding fathers contained so many effective political leaders. Wood is widely considered the leading authority on the Founding Fathers, but this book will likely have more appeal to historians and scholars than to the average reader. While Wood’s knowledge might exceed that of popular historians, the works of David McCullough, Candice Millard, or Robert Massie are more enjoyable to read.

Wood's argues that the difference is that these Revolutionary leaders (the usual phalanx, plus Paine and Burr as exemplars of contrast) were set apart by the first-generation gentility, expressed in 18th Century Enlightenment terms, on the outskirts of the empirical centers in London and Paris, in the formation of their public character in a country where the government became not a derivative of the populace but a lent lease from the populace who retained it.

In this way, expanding literacy and political discussion and voting rights empowered and raised public opinion to the level of gentlemanly discussion (if you were a Jeffersonian Republican), or dragged discourse down to the level of the common herd (if you were a Hamiltonian Federalist), which word to describe the common mass quickly became verboten.

Not that well argued or written, Woods progresses from OK thumbnail biographies to his single-chapter conclusion in generalities instead of tightly-argued theses.

Revolutionary Characters was a fun, easy to read book, that brought to life the characters of the American Revolution.

A common lament since the days of the founding fathers has been ¨Where have such leaders gone?¨ This book argues that these men were the product of a unique period of history, and a unique set of ambitions. For the most part, they truly tried to serve ¨the greater good¨ rather than their own self interest - not because they were of better moral fiber, but because that was the vogue of the day.

It also argues that the government we ended up with was not the country intended by the fathers - that it was a piece-meal product of competing ideas and ambitions. Many of the founders despaired at the end of their careers as they saw the direction the country was taking, yet despite their misgivings, they had stumbled upon a formula that has seemed to work. This debunks another popular myth, that the founders had such foresight that they were able to forsee the course of the country - that our government works because it is well designed.

In all, an interesting, enjoyable read.

Gordon Wood is good. Really good. This series of essays about the character and personal ideologies of a few of our founders is completely applicable to the leadership in the US right now, and that will make you sad. Not sugar coated, but you can really see how far we have come, or perhaps, fallen.

I sort of wish I had this book as a companion when reading the dreaded history textbooks in high school. The founding fathers were ballers. This book is a great introduction. I'll be sure to follow up with Franklin's autobiography.

Thoughtful essays on American founders. Helped me better understand their worldviews and appreciate their struggles to create and maintain an infant country 200+ years ago.

Where to begin... oh yes, this novel (textbook really) was an absolute bore. And yes, I understand that this novel depicts the great founders of America and is bound to drag on at times, but reading over 250 pages of absolute mundane, prosaic prose was complete torture for a high school student such as myself. Look, maybe the circumstances and other factors contributed to my complete loathing of this novel. Circumstances such as it being summer and being an ASSIGNMENT, oh yeah, it was over summer! I am sure others may appreciate Wood's down-to-earth writing style and his matter-of-fact tone, but I am not one of them. If you are interested in reading a 274 page essay, then Rev Char is for you. If you just want to enjoy summer, or your life for that matter, then you are probably a lamenting young student such as myself.

GTG finish my essay for rev char, lol (IM format).

History revealed

The book reveals a lot of facts about our founding fathers that has seen little or no mention in school text books. Mostly because they are less flattering to the individual. It also confirmed for that Hamilton was the scoundrel that I have always believed. Our nation was better off for Burr killing him.

Good overview of Founders...worth the effort for someone who doesn't what to plow through a long biography

Similar to the Idea of America in that Revolutionary Characters is a collection of previously written essays edited for a more popular audience. I actually fairly enjoy the format, which paints the main themes of Wood's work (the gentlemen culture, republicanism, and the birth of democratic culture) while still being accessible (unlike the very dense Radicalism of the American Revolution [worth a read, but hardly a poolside read]). The book consists of short biographical sketches of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, John Adams, Paine, and Burr. The chapters are less chronicles of the lives of the founders than illustrations in the general themes Wood explores elsewhere (for example, Wood sees Burr's real treason as a betrayal of the gentlemen class virtues by nakedly pursuing his self-interest instead of acting in a disinterested matter, and argues that Paine was America's first public intellectual, writing to the masses instead of the republic of letters [though ultimately undone by his candor in regards to his belief in deism]). Wood's introduction explains that the founding generation was truly unique and unleashed a democratic spirit that would ensure that such a ruling class would not be replicated in the United States. A running theme is that the founders created a public spirit that celebrated the people and the democratic spirit that eroded their own power base (natural aristocracy) and left many of them bewildered at the transformation near the end of their lives.

Washington is framed as the ideal gentleman and hyper concerned with his reputation (at least in modern eyes). Wood discusses the reputation that Washington established by surrendering his command at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, which was unprecedented and earned him the name of the modern Cincinnatus. Several times Washington was cajoled into making his decisions based on the impact on his reputation (once in regard to donating a gift of shares to what would become the university of washington and lee, in rejecting leadership of the society of cincinnati, both issues dear to his heart [these are mentioned in radicalism of the american revolution as well]). In fact, even when it came to presiding over the constitutional convention, Washington was finally convinced to preside to avoid the impression that he hoped the convention would fail so he could take over as a military dictator. Wood argues that one of Washington's greatest acts was to free his slaves on his death. Washington even privately concluded that if the country was to break apart, he would be on the side of the union. Also interesting was the ambiguous nature of the executive, which some (high federalists in particular, with Hamilton hoping that the United States would grow into a comparable european fiscal-military state [with ability to raise money and wage war]) regarded as an elected monarch. Washington was the only person capable of being trusted in this supreme position, throughout his term there were many trappings of european monarchy.

The chapter on Franklin is an abridgement of the Americanization of Benjamin Franklin (worth a read of its own). In particular Wood shows the transformation of Franklin from imperial servant to Revolutionary. Wood notes that unlike the other founders, Franklin already had an international reputation as a scientist, frequently considered permanently relocating to Europe and bragged of his connections to the imperial government. Franklin sought an imperial appointment as late as the 1770s, before being humiliated by the government for some political miscalculations (publically releasing the hutchinson letters). In one particularly spectacular moment, it is said that after his public humiliation Franklin told one official that he would "make your king a LITTLE KING". Wood argues that one of the reasons that Franklin became so patriotic was his loyalties were questioned because he was a late (though authentic, mainly through being spurred) convert to the revolutionary cause.

The essays on Adams, Madison and Jefferson are interesting in that they show some of the nuances of the "first" party system. Wood notes that the federalists and republicans were not modern parties in any meaning of the word. The federalists considered themselves the government, and considered the republicans to be subversive elements challenging the government (this was particularly interesting in context of the sedition acts, which the federalists thought was legitimate to protect the government, while the republicans developed an early argument for the marketplace of ideas, which symbolizes the birth of public opinion), while the republicans considered themselves a temporary alliance meant to restore true revolutionary values (similar to English Whigs). Jefferson and Madison represented a strain of revolutionary thought that assumed that if left alone the natural impulses of society would allow civilization and people to prosper. Central to their belief was the role of trade in connecting peoples peacefully (similar to Kant's perpetual peace argument) and the rationale behind the disastrous embargo (which Wood notes still exists as economic sanctions). Jefferson and Madison thought that monarchical power was tied to warfare, standing armies and tyranny and stood in direct opposition to Hamilton. Wood argues that there is no "Madison problem" (between the Madison of the Federalist, and the Madison of the Kentucky Resolutions). Wood argues that Madison was always concerned about the abuses of the popular legislatures (in his virginia plan, both houses were proportional, and congress would wield a veto over state laws against the Union. Madison also suggested that there be a judicial/executive council to wield this veto. When these were rejected, Madison thought the constitution would fail. Ultimately, Madison supported SCOTUS judicial review) but did not favor the fiscal/executive/military state that Hamilton supported (which was ultimately the most forward looking). Wood's essay on Adams is interesting as well. Adams was outside of the country during the crucial period of the convention. While Adams supported the tripartite structure, he relied on classical rationales of republicanism, which saw each branch as representative of an order of society (the senate- aristocracy, the house- the populace and the executive/monarchy to balance the two). Adams based this on his pessimistic view of humanity as jealous and scrambling for honors. While most political theory by that point agreed with the conclusion, it did not agree with the rationale, which rested on a theory of popular sovereignty (the people doling out its sovereignty to the government which have parts of that authority as agents of the people). Overall, an enjoyable read that does not repeat the rote popular biographies but not dense enough to give you a headache in the sun.