Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Gordon S. Wood takes a nuanced look at pre-revolutionary shifts in American culture, family structure, politics, religion, education, and economics. It's a complex re-envisioning that only occasionally looks at the lives of individuals - Wood does not subscribe to the great man theory of history, but is interested in the larger context. He asks, why did the American revolution happen? Americans were generally prosperous, free, and barely aware of the far-away king in England:


"By the late 1760s and early 1770s a potentially revolutionary situation existed in many of the colonies. There was little evidence of those social conditions we often associate with revolution (and some historians have desperately sought to find): no mass poverty, no seething social discontent, no grinding oppression. [...] there was a great deal of jealousy and touchiness everywhere, for what could be made could be unmade; the people were acutely nervous about their prosperity and the liberty that seemed to make it possible."

Something was different about the American Revolution, and it's fascinating to see Wood draw his conclusions from the broad sweeps of the history of ideology and economics. I found the chapter on "Patriarchal Dependence" especially fascinating for its look into the harsh and widespread system of slavery and indentured servitude. The only truly independent people were "large portions of white male society", but everyone was aware of the dark side of dependence on another's will: they experienced it in daily life, after all. The seed for universal suffrage was planted, though it would take centuries to mature.

Our current assumptions about human nature and human relationships stand out in clear contrast to the beliefs of the founders - the America of the Revolution really was another world. Their reshaping of the social fabric, reimagining the ties that held people together, led to the America of today in ways that the founders never would have predicted (and even would have hated), but to us seem inexorable. The bonds of noblesse oblige and gratitude were neatly severed, imperfectly replaced by religion, trade, and mutual self-interest.

This isn't a book I'd recommend for a casual reader, or to those who like more traditional narrative histories like David McCullough's n  1776n. Fans of Howard Zinn's n  A People's History of the United Statesn may enjoy Wood's insightful new take on a familiar era. Revolutionary War-era buffs or policy wonks looking for an unusual history with a commanding sense of an era's subtle movements will find their perfect match here.

Quotable (all emphasis mine):
"Because monarchy had these implications of humiliation and dependency, the Anglo-American colonists could never be good monarchical subjects. But of course neither could their fellow Englishmen 'at home' three thousand miles across the Atlantic. All Englishmen in the eighteenth century were known throughout the Western world for their insubordination, their insolence, their stubborn unwillingness to be governed."

"Monarchy presumed what Hume called a 'long train of dependence,' a gradation of degrees of freedom and servility that linked everyone from the king at the top down to the bonded laborers and black slaves at the bottom. The inequalities of such a hierarchy were acceptable to people because they were offset by the great emotional satisfactions of living in a society in which everyone, even the lowliest servant, counted for something."

"People labored out of necessity, out of poverty, and that necessity and poverty bred the contempt in which laboring people had been held for centuries. Freedom was always valued because it was freedom from this necessity to labor. Most people, it was widely assumed, would not work if they did not have to. 'Everyone but an idiot,' said the English agricultural writer Arthur Young in a startling summary of the traditional view, 'knows that the lower class must be kept poor or they will never be industrious.'"

"The gentlemanly elites of the eighteenth century could condescend and be affable with their subordinates and inferiors because they often thought of themselves as parents dealing with children. Since most relationships in this hierarchical society were still very personal, they were also necessarily paternalistic."

"In the colonies servitude was a much harsher, more brutal, and more humiliating status than it was in England, and this difference had important implications for the colonists' consciousness of dependency. Colonial bonded servants in fact shared some of the chattel nature of black slaves."

"Many colonists, therefore, not only black slaves but white servants and young men and a variety of tenants and of course all women, knew firsthand what dependence meant. Dependence, said James Wilson in 1774, was 'very little else, but an obligation to conform to the will ... of that superior person ... upon which the inferior depends. People who were dependent could not be free; in fact, 'freedom and dependency' were 'opposite and irreconcilable terms.' Dependents were all those who had no wills of their own; thus like children they could have no political personalities and could rightfully be excluded from participation in public life. It was this reasoning that underlay the denial of the vote to women, servants, apprentices, short-term tenants, minors, and sons over twenty-one still living at home with their parents."

"No doubt the cost that America paid for this democracy was high - with its vulgarity, its materialism, its rootlessness, its anti-intellectualism. But there is no denying the wonder of it and the real earthly benefits it brought to the hitherto neglected and despised masses of common laboring people. The American Revolution created this democracy, and we are living with it still."

There is a reason that Gordon Wood is held in such high esteem by historians and those who read history. His research is impeccable and he is able to weave that research into a narrative that is readable (if a bit dry at times) and gives new understanding to his topic. I have studied the revolution and read many books on it but none of them explain the Revolution as thoroughly and clearly as this book. it should be required reading in any class on the subject.

From his explanation of the prevailing attitudes of the people of Europe and America previous to the War to effects it had on the post-war world, the reader is left with a much fuller and richer understanding of why it was revolutionary. The Founders were not completely happy with the result because even though they were not happy playing second fiddle to their compatriots while still part of the empire, they still very much liked their place as the aristocracy in the newly created country. They set in motion the creation of a democracy failing to understand that as Woods put it, democracy is an extension of a republic. This book belongs on the shelves of anyone interested in understanding the American Revolution.

I read The Radicalism of the American Revolution by Gordon S. Wood because I recently learned of the American Revolution in AP US History. From my knowledge of AP World history, I knew that in response to the American revolution sprouted the South American, Haitian, and French revolutions as well. This book delightfully surprised me and overwhelmed me! I really recommend it! I have personal connections with the story because I do see how American society is different from European societies at the time and now.
The idea that Gordon S. Wood dealt with was the radicalism of the American Revolution. There was no characterization because it was not historical fiction at all: just pure history. I really enjoyed that because sometimes I don’t wanna hear about something that might be historically accurate, but didn’t actually happen. The use of language was advanced, so sometimes you would have to read things a few times to comprehend them. Eventually, the context would make the text makes sense. Wood’s use of language also persuaded me that America was in fact radical and progressive when compared to other societies then and now. I left the book with more admiration for founding Americans like the colonists. Some of the ways Americans were radical during the Revolution, for example, was the idea of ditching monarchy. It was scarred into their heads that it was justified as god wanted royalty to have their power. Thus, America, well known for being egalitarian and believing that all men are created equal, was radical and detested monarchy. Furthermore, most societies had patrician and plebeian societies, so switching to egalitarian, despite slavery, was different.
I specifically recommend this book to those who like raw history. These readers don’t need historical fiction to be interested in history. I recommend this book for mature history students and parents as they are also commonly mature readers. If a reader is interested in cultures and how they develop in society, then they should definitely read this book because they can see how America controlled the continuance of some methods of society and was super progressive in stopping with other super popular ones.

You can also see this review, along with others I have written, at my blog, Mr. Book's Book Reviews.

Mr. Book just finished The Radicalism Of The American Revolution, by Gordon S. Wood.

Gordon Wood is one of the leading historians of the American Revolution. In this book, Wood disproves the theory that the Revolution was a conservative one. According to him, “It was the Revolution, more than any other single event, that made America into the most liberal, democratic and modern nation in the world.”

Prior to the Revolution, colonial society was one in which people were considered to be born into their professions. That all changed with the Revolution.

Professor Wood made a persuasive case that, contrary to the revisionist argument that claim the Revolution didn’t change society, except for independence, it instead brought radical changes to American society as a whole.

I give this book an A and am looking forward to listening to the audiobook. Goodreads requires grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, an A equates to 5 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).

This review has been posted at my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews, and Goodreads.

Mr. Book originally finished reading this on July 20, 2024.

This is an outstanding survey of the forces at work during the revolutionary era. What Wood demonstrated most effectively was how quickly 19th century Democracy devoured the 18th century republican dreams of the founders....I often thought the defeat of John Qunicy Adams at the hands of Andrew Jackson epitomized this phenomenon.

Wood argues in The Radicalism of the American Revolution that the Revolution in America was radical because it transformed colonial society during the years 1740-1840 from a gentry-dominated body into an American nation governed by common persons. He primarily attacks the Progressive and neo-Progressive schools of analysis that pegged the American revolution as an elite event in comparison to the radicalism of the French Revolution’s empowerment of artisans and workers. Wood divides his narrative into three large sections--monarchy, republicanism, and democracy--through which he traces the growing radicalism of social and ideological upheaval as more and more non-gentry (farmers and artisans) gained political and social power in America. His source base largely consists of the writings and pamphlets of northern colonial political leaders such as John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, southern planters such as Thomas Jefferson and Henry Laurens, and political theorists and philosophers such as David Hume and John Locke. While Wood’s broad narrative is fascinating, its breadth relies upon the potential society the Revolution opened the door for and not what the Revolution actually changed in society. Wood’s notion of new possibilities glosses over the reality of the revolt against Great Britain. Despite such a flaw, The Radicalism of the American Revolution ought to be read by intellectual historians of early America and all students (armchair or professional) of early American history seeking a summary account of how ideas and society shaped the course of American government.

Every APUSH student's worst nightmare.

Will probably be a difficult read for most. At times it can be a bit dry, but Gordon Wood paints a rich picture of 18th century America. He outlines the psychology of pre-revolutionary society, defines the goals of the revolutionaries, and describes the practical results of the revolutionary war.
This book is for those that want an in depth understanding at how the revolution emerged out of and then proceeded to shape the American collective consciousness. It doesn't cover individual events, battles or anything of that sort. It's goal is to understand political and societal impacts in very broad strokes.

I'm gonna memorize some obscure passages and regurgitate them as my own insight to impress chicks and embarrass Ben Affleck. Nothing can possibly go wrong with this plan.

A meticulously researched and wonderfully constructed thesis. Wood spares no expense (nor pages) in diving deep into the culture leading up to, during, and coming out of the American Revolution. Compiling across a seemingly infinite number of sources, he applies a new lense to an era in American history that many here take for granted. a bit wordy and no doubt dense, an enlightened read. Impossible to finish without having a new appreciation for the events of 1776.

Really enjoyed this one. I decided to read this one after hearing Chomsky mention it in an interview. It is more for an academic audience than popular, which is one of the reasons it took me so long to finish. I think I would like to reread it instead of doing the audiobook, just so I could ruminate on some of the passages more easily. I never knew of the hopelessness and despair many of the Founding Fathers felt towards the end of their lives after seeing their experiment turn into something they did not foresee. I think the ending passage is one of the best in the book.

"The people looked back in awe and wonder at the revolutionary generation and saw in them leaders the likes of which they knew they would never see again in America. But they also knew that they now lived in a different world, a democratic world, that required new thoughts and new behavior. We cannot rely on the views of the Founding Fathers anymore, Martin Van Buren told the New York convention in 1820. We have to rely on our own experience, not on what they said and thought. They had many fears, said Van Buren, fears of democracy that American experience had not borne out. A new generation of democratic Americans was no longer interested in the revolutionaries dream of building a classical republic of elitist virtue out of the inherited materials of the Old World. America, they said, would find its greatness not by emulating the states of classical antiquity, not by copying the fiscal, military powers of modern Europe, and not by producing a few notable geniuses in great-souled men. Instead it would discover its greatness by creating a prosperous, free society belonging to obscure people with their workaday concerns, and their pecuniary pursuits of happiness. Common people with their common interest in making money and getting ahead. No doubt the cost that America pay for this democracy was high with its vulgarity, its materialism, its ruthlessness, and its anti-intellectuallism. But there is no denying the wonder of it and the real earthly benefits it brought to the hitherto neglected and despised masses of common laboring people. The American Revolution created this democracy and we are living with its consequences still."

"Americans' interpretation of their Revolution could never cease; it was integral to the very existence of the nation. Some found the meaning of the Revolution in the Constitution and the union it had created. Others discovered the meaning in the freedom and equality that the Revolution had produced. But many other Americans knew that such meanings were too formal, too legal, too abstract, to express what most actually experienced in being Americans. In concrete day-to-day terms, invocations of the Constitution meant the freedom to be left alone, and in turn that freedom meant the ability to make money and pursue happiness."

- Gordon S. Wood