Completely fascinating and packed full of revelations about the early thinking of political leaders forming our republic (or democratic republic, the new type of government the founding fathers claimed they had created). The author focuses on the years leading up to 1776, and the critical period between independence and the creation of the constitution and the federal government. Basically, political philosophy evolved from a radical Whig ideas rooted in England that emphasized the legislature (specifically the House of Commons) as the primary voice of the people as opposed to the two other branches that represent the monarchy (the King) and the aristocracy (the House of Lords). The early U.S. state constitutions after independence were distrustful of government in general, and put most powers in the legislature, the ensuing chaos (especially from the perspective of the upper classes) brought about the move towards a federal structure that mirrored classical ideas about government with a balance between the monarchy (our president), the aristocracy (our senate), the people (our House of Reps), and the judiciary, with the radical twist that all branches of government actually only represent the will of the people not kings, aristocracies, or anyone but the people. It is a little academic, but that idea broke with thousands of years of political thought about what a republic is and how it works.

To summarize (and simplify to the degree that the author would likely quibble with), after 1776 a bunch of highly democratic forms of government were created at the state level (large houses of representatives with most of the power, frequent elections/short terms in office, hyper-local representation, limited restrictions of voting for white people - more on that in a second). Many founding fathers, who were the aristocracy in the US, freaked out about the amount of power lodged in the hands of the voting public and created a national government to water down the influence of voters, mostly by taking power away from the House of Rep and delegating those powers to an executive (a king-like role), a senate (the calming voice of the aristocrats), and a judiciary.

The discussion of republicanism, which is the classical idea that a republic cannot survive without a virtuous populace dedicated to the good of the community, was fascinating. Especially the idea that the founding fathers began the revolution with the idea that the US was filled with a special type of citizen that would make an everlasting republic possible and then, after 10 years were like "...um, nope, our people are idiots, we need to set up a government that insulates power from the people."

The corollaries to today were uncanny - the concern about the people being duped by unscrupulous politicians telling them what they want to hear, fear of the executive and possible tyranny, questions about whether politicians, especially the House of Reps, should represent their narrow slice of the public or some general public good, the evolution of politics from idealized perspective that government just translates abstract public good into operation to the realization that society is made up of many conflicting interests and must be battled out incrementally. I could go on, but its so strange that we seem to be fighting the same issues today that existed at our inception, maybe its the nature of republics, or maybe its the nature of humans?

Four stars b/c some times it was a little too academic, too many direct quotes with no attribution, and what seems like a pretty ridiculous oversight to never mention slaves, female suffrage, or anything about the glaring contradictions of talking about the rights of humans in our founding documents while enslaving and disenfranchising so many people.

This is one of the most impressive books I've ever read. It is an amazing work of research and scholarship that is astounding in scope. It is clear that Wood has done his homework and has created an impressive work. The title is rather broad, and could indicate a variety of things, but lest any be misled, this book is pure political philosophy. This is not a work dealing with the war, the build-up to war, or even a history of the period. The book is singularly focused on the evolution of the political philosophy during the period from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitutional Convention.

This singular focus being so thoroughly treated at such length is nearly breathtaking in ambition. It is a surprisingly fast-paced read though I grew tired of it. I simply did not have the sustained interest Wood requires from his readers. Again, it is most impressive that Wood knows the material so well and can actually sustain this work.

The work itself is most interested in the notion of ultimate sovereignty--which is the highest governmental authority? The traditional answer, coming from the British tradition, is that the monarch is invested with ultimate authority. But the Glorious Revolution began the transition of the loci of power from the monarch to parliament.

The trouble leading to the revolution is that the American colonies had no parliamentary representation--it was instead a "virtual representation." This was wholly unsatisfactory to the colonial Whigs, and they became increasingly concerned that the British Crown was imposing tyranny over the colonies in a variety of ways. The move toward the Declaration of Independence moved the central authority from the representative body to the people itself.

This transition of power from the people's representatives to the people themselves evolved rapidly particularly as the colonies enacted state constitutions during the war period. The political philosophers of the time were concerned that the power of the people be sufficient to stand against the authoritarian impulses in government. Theorists were concerned that one body, whether it be the executive or the legislature would grab too much power and impose tyranny over the people.

The bicameral legislature was part of the answer--but how could the two legislative bodies be different and act as checks against one another when their authority is derived in the same fashion? Law makers struggled particularly with the aristocratic nature of the House of Lords and the implications for an equal people.

After the colonial constitutions had been in place for several years and the Articles of Confederation united the colonies, the founders became increasingly concerned that the state governments were corrupt and required a power over them to restrain their avarice. So Wood argues that the Constitution came not so much from a weak Articles of Confederation, but out of corrupt and ineffectual state government.

As the Constitution Convention was convened, Madison had already formulated a plan, along with Hamilton that would create a Federal government that would be invested with greater power and would become the focus of the best of the best--a government run by the elite of the nation placing a restraint upon unchecked state power and corruption.

It is clear that Madison was a son of the Enlightenment, for whatever beliefs he held about man, he clearly believed that the proper system of government could act as a buffer against corruption, greed, tyranny, and partisanship. This is another central theme of the book--the impact of the Enlightenment upon the framers. Wood rarely actually writes about this explicitly, rather, it is an implicit theme of the framers that government is good and a positive societal power.

It is this naive assumption that a governmental system could act sufficiently to restrain the wickedness of man and keep man in check that was the most insightful aspect of the book. Not all the founders believed this, in fact many were vocal opponents of such a view. But it is their actions that speak louder than their words. Wood in fact concludes the book in admiration for the genius of the Constitution in its restraint against tyranny. Yet it is abundantly clear today, and should have been sufficiently clear during the lifetime of the founders, that the Constitution was a very limited restraint upon the ambitions of partisans.

The Constitution has in fact been a failure. It has not restrained tyranny, corruption, greed, and abuse of power. I would argue that the U.S. Constitution, regardless of how good it was in intention, it has proven far too pliable to the sinfulness of man. No governmental system can restrain the evil of its people. To believe otherwise is to subscribe to the Enlightenment notion of the perfectibility of man.

So what did I "get" from this massive, thorough, and impressive work? The founders were fundamentally children of the Enlightenment--whatever Christian influence there was subsumed under Enlightenment philosophy. I'm far more skeptical of the "Christian founding" narrative so often told by Christians. This is not to say they are entirely wrong, just that they are trying to argue for too much. The Constitution is perhaps as good of a document as could have been had in 1787, but it placed its fundamental authority not in the Word of God, but in the people. This constant refrain that all government is derived from the consent of the governed is a thoroughly humanistic philosophy derived from Enlightenment rationalism.

I read this as part of my studying for the general exams I took for my doctorate in history. Wood does an incredible job of explaining what the founders' really believed and what the Constitution really means. Everyone should read this classic, especially those Tea Party types who need in a good lesson in what the original intent of the Founders actually was. Sobering, humbling, exhilarating, and stimulating--one of the best books I have ever read.

It took me a while to complete this book. I read half of it and then put it down for a few weeks before returning to finish it. I agree with some other reviewers that the style can be difficult. It’s by no means an easy, breezy read. There are endless quotes strung together which constitute a majority of the writing on any given page. This sometimes made the authors points more difficult to grasp. At other times the quotes made certain sections read almost like poetry, which I enjoyed, though this was the rarer experience.

Overall I learned a lot about America’s founding era. America was very politically and socially complicated after independence. It was also this uniquely American experience in the years after the break with Britain that produced the system of government embodied in the US Constitution. The book distills some of the mysticism around the founding. Americans were not unique people but the circumstances of the time gave rise to a unique system of government. In many ways the Federalists were very clever politicians who simply outwitted the Anti-Federalists and used their own arguments against them. The Senate isn’t really a representation of the aristocracy. No, it’s by the people! The executive isn’t the magistracy, no, it’s also by the people! The ingenious ways the Federalists pivoted, manipulated, and adjusted their arguments to give new reasons in support of the same institutions that descended from recent history can only be read with amazement.

A heavy and heady tome, for sure. Originally published in 1969, Professor Wood's book traces the political philosophies, and the ever-CHANGING political philosophies of the American public and politicians who fueled the creation of the US system of government following independence in 1776. Wood uses an exhaustive array of first-hand sources to show the emerging American philosophy having its origins in the English Whig tradition, but branching off to have its own distinct character, a fact that made the so-called Founding Fathers quite proud -- and even slightly arrogant, one could say -- of what they had created. Debate and discussion was often, if not always, lively and heated. Letters, correspondences, newspaper editorials, written essays, books; these were the sources of fiery social media of the day. I cannot recommend this book highly enough. One of my favorite US history books ever.

One of the half dozen most important books ever written about the American Revolution. This 615 page book is no light read.

If I could have an encyclopedic recall of any book, it might just be this one.

"'The independence of America considered merely as a separation from England, would have been a matter but of little importance,' remarked Thomas Paine, "had it not been accompanied by a revolution in the principles and practice of governments.'" (pg 594)

"... observed Nathaniel Chipman in 1793...'While government was supposed to depend on a compact not between the individuals of a people, but between the people and the rulers, this was a point of great consequence.' But not any longer in America, where government was based on a compact only among the people. Obedience to the government in America followed from no such traditional consideration. The flow of authority itself was reversed, and 'consent,' which had not been the basis of magisterial authority in the past, now become 'the sole obligatory principle of human government and human laws'... The once important distinction between magisterial authority and representative legislative authority was now obliterated...No more revolutionary change in the history of politics could have been made: the rulers had become the ruled and the ruled the rulers." (pg 602)

"The constitution represented both the climax and the finale of the American Enlightenment, both the fulfillment and the end of the belief that the endless variety and perplexity of society could be reduced to a simple and harmonious system. By attempting to formulate a theory of politics that would represent reality as it was, the Americans of 1787 shattered the classical Whig world of 1776." (pg 606)

The above quotes from the final chapter of this book summarize the point Wood is trying to make. The creation and development of the American system of government was by no means inevitable or anticipated. How the thinking of the American founders changed and developed is marvelously shown in this book. Previous assumptions about society and forms of government had to shift, sometimes greatly, and with considerable effects.

Not only is this an important work for understanding the development of the American constitution, it is also a great work of historical thinking and writing. Highly recommended.

Not an easy read, but the ideas are powerful and well argued.

"The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia) by Gordon S. Wood (1998)"

The best book on the revolutionary period. This book is packed and well written. A tour do force.

Read over 2 months at work. In depth book with so many holes. Really 3 star, but seems tough for such an in depth study. The lack of slavery being mentioned makes you really question his conception of America and the validity of this text.