I wish the authors of the 1619 Project could see how Wood's interpretation of the American Revolution forms the basis of the social justice they support, rather than to insist on the primacy of slavery and race as one of its main causes, which indeed seems far-fetched. Wood's argument of how the American Revolution was transformed from the ideal of government by the gentleman to that of the great common man was fascinating and completely changed my conception of American history. I strongly recommend it, even if you think of currently think of Wood as a superannuated white male historian whose time has passed.

Very interesting account of how traditional colonial America moved through republican ideals to democratisation in the revolutionary era, with the best explanations I've read of these different political cultures. My only gripe is that Wood does not distinguish the different colonial cultures: while he discusses examples from New England, the middle Atlantic and the South, their distinctiveness from each other is not brought out, which is somewhat of a sin in a book that postdates 'Albion's Seed'. It is a problem to discuss the political cultures of Massachusetts and Virginia as if they were roughly equally democratic at the start of the era.

I really struggled with this book. It was much more philosophical than books I usually read. I like books about people and this one was much more about ideas. I have found myself in lectures by interesting professors dealing with ideas and found that I enjoyed them a lot. This one was far more likely to put me to sleep than not. I enjoyed the first part of the book much more than the end. I did find some things interesting, and even a few things that I can use in school, so I didn't give it a one star...it's just not one I would recommend to -- well -- pretty much anyone I know. (Including other history teachers.)

This is just a great work of political and social history. Wood does a particularly fine job of teasing out the contradictions in various conceptions of "interestedness" and showing how those conceptions--and interestedness in general--dominate the intellectual landscape of the Revolutionary generation and, by extension, how they shaped modern America.

In a nutshell, here's the argument (not that I can do justice to its complexity or the richness of research that supports it): many Founders believed in the classical version of public servants as disinterested by virtue of their independent means. For example, Jefferson and his crew often tried to place officeholders based on merit (where merit often had as much to do with bloodline as with native ability or achievement), and John Q Adams was so averse to partisanship that he left in place many of Monroe's appointees. But as the country grew, this model became increasingly unsustainable; in a large country with an expanding bureaucracy that possessed democratic pretensions, placed an emphasis on social mobility (for white men), and at least paid lip service to meritocracy, there simply weren't enough of the "right" people to staff things. Which leads directly to Jackson's creation of the spoils system, where successful parties reward their followers with jobs. Paradoxically, because this leads to appointees who are nakedly partisan and often unqualified, the structure of government becomes more professional as a safeguard against excessive interestedness; essentially, this is the genesis of the civil service.

Meanwhile, on the economic side, the growth of publicly-chartered corporations entangles the chartering legislatures in commerce and the market. And one of the key mechanisms to protect the integrity of private transactions and businesses from partisan is the judiciary. Because legislatures are inherently compromised, it's left to courts to mediate business disputes and uphold and interpret contracts, the inviolability of which is codified in the Constitution.

Anyway, this is just a taste of the book. Lots of other great stuff on the role of religion in public life, the origins of American middlebrow taste, and the role and definition of "the people" in the founding era. Just a great read all around.

If you've been taught that the American Revolution was a conservative affair, with colonial gentry angry for being denied what they saw as their rights and dignities as Englishmen, this book will be an eye opener.

Despite the knee breeches and powdered wigs, America's founders were radicals who sought to change the way people were governed forever and wound up changing that and so much more.

The tension in Wood's account comes from how far the Revolution eventually went, far beyond the intentions of genteel leaders who believed that a Republic should be governed by those educated to a sense of Roman virtue. After independence, back country farmers and urban tradesmen took seriously the promise that all men were created equal and demanded their part of rulership as well. This unleashed not just a further political revolution putting many common men in office but also a social revolution that wound up dethroning the founders' ideal of virtuous government conducted by the well educated for the good of all with government by interest, where each major group in society, from immigrants to particular industries, was represented in Congress by members of their own.

In the end, the social revolution went further, replacing a respect for accomplishment attainable by only a few with a love of money that anybody could amass, making America the most egalitarian, but also the most commercial, nation on earth. And it's this same tension that spread across the globe, removing the mystique from king and pope alike, a tension that also continues to animate American politics and culture today.

Wood's thesis - that the American Revolution was essentially a cultural and political metanoia - is not actually so controversial as it might seem. He has no problem proving that, and does so thoroughly and consistently. What this book has more trouble with is building towards a useful conclusion after laying the theoretical groundwork; Wood never quite manages to address the question "So what?" after he has answered the question "What happened?" Still, it's interesting to note that, given the love affair modern conservatives have with the Founding Fathers, the country was actually birthed in what we would now term a leftist movement.

I remember when this book was first published 30 years ago. I had planned to read it then, but only got around to it now. That was a serious error because this book explains so much about the nature of this country here in the 21st century. Gordon S. Wood shows without question that the American Revolution was a radical event and that it succeeded rather too well in the eyes of its own begetters, the so-called Founders. They had no intention of creating a democracy. They intended to created a republic, but it completely got away from them.

The Radicalism of the American Revolution is divided into three sections: Monarchy, Republicanism, and Democracy. These are steps along which American society proceeded between the early 18th to the early 19th century. Modern revisionists frequently complain that the American revolution was promulgated wholly by rich, white men. In fact, the richest men in the colonies had a fraction of the wealth of the British aristocracy that controlled their economy. While most of the self-styled aristocrats of the colonies pretended to be gentlemen, that is, men who did not have to work for a living, most of them did work for a living.

The republican ideal was to create a society run by disinterested men of means. Because they did not depend on the marketplace to live, these gentlemen were supposed to be able to retain an objectivity that would otherwise be impossible. Their objectivity would allow them to rule based on reason, as opposed to simply looking after they own interests.

Wood makes extensive use of diaries, journals, and letters, which lends credence to his arguments. These private expressions of thoughts and feelings between confidants are more believable than any public avowals. One of the core characteristics of colonial and early republican society was paternalism, the vertical chain of connections that ran from top to bottom through all men. These paternalistic connections are baldly expressed in their letters and diaries.

The difference between the monarchic and the republic systems had to do with justifying why the rulers should rule. The monarchic society was essentially a large family with the king at the head, an all-father of sorts. All chains of connections led downward from the king through individuals who had their position by heredity. In the republican system, individuals had their position at the top because of their learning, talent, and their virtue. Wood makes the interesting point that many of the Founders were the first members of their families to attend college. He also is good about demonstrating the social difficulties of throwing off the monarchic yoke. Whereas the British had ruled by fear to some extent, the republicans attempted to rule by reason, not only in government, but at home. And this did not always succeed.

In his final section Wood shows how it all got away from the revolutionary republican generation. The common people, freed from the shackles of history and blessed with a roaring economy, pursued self-interest with unbridled and previously unseen levels of zeal. Instead of emulating the high and austere ideals of their ruling class, they decided that they were equal in virtue to them and that pursuit of self-interest was the "pursuit of happiness". In the early 19th century there was a great leveling, with the aristocracy's manners being adopted and the working classes' sole claim to labor usurped. Suddenly, everyone had manners and everyone worked.

Wood is a good writer, rather forceful and direct for an academic, but an academic nonetheless. This is not a book for everyone. For one thing, you need to already know your history in order to read it because it is one long commentary on history rather than a recitation of it.

In the end, it helped me to see why, even though this country was born amid the fervor of the Enlightenment, in its present state it does not follow those lofty principles. Instead, the ruling class of the Revolutionary generation, both Federalist and Republican, were quickly left behind as everyone pursued the almighty dollar rather an any ideal. In that regard, not much has changed in over two centuries.

Gordon S. Wood contends that the gigantic social changes wrought by the American Revolution were much more radical than typically acknowledged and completely changed the social fabric of society. He argues that the American Revolution and its consequences were not as conservative as many modern people believe.

The British colonial society that existed in America prior to the Revolution was one modeled on monarchy and hierarchical relationships. In England, a certain class of hereditary aristocrats with large property, wealth, leisure, and education were considered the only true legitimate political rulers and held the bulk of political power. Each person had their place in a hierarchy of superiors and inferiors and a system of patronage and patrons. Social rank and distinctions were a fundamental part of this society, as well as kinships attachments between members of a society in which who you were related to could have major consequences for your prospects, and within families patriarchal father’s ruled their homes on similar hierarchical and patron/patronage grounds. Everyone from college students to magistrates to the military to farmers to artisans acknowledged social distinctions even within their own respective social spheres.

Although the British Americans colonies participated in this system, many of its features never took complete root in America. America never had a hereditary aristocracy. The local gentry that did manage to develop in the American colonies never could entirely live off their land without running into debt or being forced to engage in some mercantile pursuits on the side. While wealthy, their wealth never came anywhere near the greatest landowners in England. Likewise, the authority of traditional religion that was a part of this hierarchical system in England through the official Anglican Church never took strong root in America as many different Christian traditions existed throughout the various colonies and many of these lacked Christian hierarchies and ranks that made up the Anglican Church, consisting only of mere priests who maintained their authority within their local church and among its congregants.

Challenging these old hierarchical systems was the republicanism of the Enlightenment. Republicanism was not an idea that Americans invented. Many advocates of republicanism and its ideals in Europe were members of English and French nobility who didn’t consider that their enthusiasm for these ideas might erode their own social status and power. Many advocates of republicanism in the 18th century didn’t view republicanism as a replacement for monarchy, but as a way of reforming monarchy and thought they could exist side by side. Its values drew from an 18th century interpretation of the classical world, holding up Cicero and Cato as intellectual models. It posited that man was a political being who gained his fulfillment from participating in the political decisions of his government. Republicans of the 18th century believed to protect liberty and make the best political decisions for everyone required people that would be disinterested and guided by virtue for the greater good of the nation and the people. They believed land ownership was crucial in allowing people to be disinterested and not reliant on the caprice of the mob, or financial self-interests. As part of this line of thinking, common people such as merchants and farmer-tenants working on other peoples’ land for their living were not independent enough to be disinterested when making political decisions.

The Founding fathers adopted these 18th century Republican ideas during the revolution, but took them further. They envisioned a society based on meritocracy rather than on rank and birth; a society where one’s intelligence, education, and virtue mattered most. Social mobility would be based on individual character and ability. It would be a system that promoted equality of opportunity rather than if you were born into the right family or related to the right person. Many of the founding fathers came from humble backgrounds and were the first in their family to achieve the status of a gentleman and study the liberal arts at a college. Nevertheless, their vision still accepted it would be gentleman of leisure, property, and who possessed a liberal arts education from a college that would serve as the leaders of the new republic. The primary difference from older republican ideas was that it was more flexible who could join those ranks, believing these characteristics were something that could be achieved and learned, and not just something you had to be born into. They thought their republic would lead to an enlightened society based on virtue, progress, and the removal of superstition from the public sphere.

The revolution was more than just a change of government from monarchy to a democratic republic. Ultimately as Wood argues the entire society’s relationships and how they conceived those relationships with each other changed. Wood shows that democratization that replaced the hierarchical system didn’t end with the revolution and the idealized republican ideas of the founding fathers. Democracy was a new social order with new kinds of linkages holding people together, and it really did unleash some radically different perspectives than what had previously existed. Democracy granted new importance, dignity, and honor to ordinary people, not just a social elite, recasting the purpose of society as the pursuit of happiness by ordinary people. Wood suggests that prior to the American Revolution people didn’t think this way about ordinary person or the goal of society. In their later writings, many of the founding fathers revealed a pessimism and unhappiness with how society was unfolding. It ended up being far different than the educated and virtuous elite that they had imagined would lead the nation.

The radical character of the democracy witnessed changes in thinking about the political class and what type of people were fit to occupy such roles. Artisans and middling classes formed groups to advocate for their participation in politics. Participating in politics went from being a civic duty and the virtuous higher calling of an educated elite to a fully paid occupation that were careers like any other job. As ideas of equality spread among working and the middle class, people began to challenge the assumptions that many held in the 18th century. Leisure that was once so valued among the elite classes became redefined as idleness, and working for a living became a virtue in America. Expansion westward and opportunities for movement deteriorated hierarchical superior and inferior relationships between people further. Family became about affection between its members instead of patriarchal rule. Religion took an evangelical stamp and became more individualized and less formal with people switching between religions frequently too fulfill their personal spiritual needs. People were free to follow their natural desires with the removal of artificial restraints of government and traditional social ties, which often included blatantly following one’s self-interests in business and politics. This also became true of politicians who would serve the interests of their constituents and sometimes their own pecuniary self-interests. Another consequence of the Revolution and the participation of lower classes was the democratization of knowledge leading to anti-intellectualism and the feeling that one’s own opinion and thoughts were as good as any educated person’s. Indeed, public opinion came to matter more than in any other country at the time. Although the revolution failed to liberate women and black slaves, Wood argues that it allowed the possibility of anti-slavery movements and women’s rights movements. All egalitarian thinking stemmed from this social change at the heart of the American Revolution. It’s radical nature was the equality and egalitarian principles at its core that eventually leveled the field between people from different social spheres of life.

No matter how deep, how far, and how much I swim in American History, I always find something of interest and something new that informs my perspective and love for my nation's history. The Radicalism of the American Revolution explores ideas related to the Revolution I had not previously explored. Its subject matter is interesting, but, alas, its writing lumbers and stomps around and makes the overall reading experience less than enjoyable.

To begin with, I don't want to diminish the additional insight Gordon S. Wood's book brings to the overall conversation and exploration of the American Revolution. There is a lot here which was new, fresh, and valuable. Above all, I loved the exploration of ideas and how they impacted American society before, during, and after the Revolution. How did America slough off the old sentiments of aristocracy? What did the idea of equality do for American society generally? How did it diffuse throughout the population, eventually illuminating not only white male property holders but also women, African slaves, and others? What was the impact of individualism and the establishment of American's republic of commerce? These and a host of other fascinating questions are the book's reason for existing. In the end, The Radicalism of the American Revolution is worth reading, but it will take some extra work and dedication to do so. I'm fine with reading hard books, but I don't love reading bland writing.

When I started reading the book I was a little concerned because it reminded me a bit too much of Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America. That book suggest and attempts to show that most of the founders acted wholly out of self-interest in relation to their wealth and property. No doubt the founders were wise enough to be comprehensively concerned about a great many interests, but I found Beard's arguments unpersuasive. For a certain duration Wood appears to be taking a similar approach with the monumental changes which occurred leading up to and causing the Revolution. Wood presents a great preponderance of economic evidence suggesting why societal feelings and trends moved in the way they did; however, this focus misses some of the mark. Ideas matter, as The Radicalism of the American Revolution shows, and economic factors can never, in my opinion, fully explain the course of nations and societies. I admit the explanatory difficulty becomes somewhat of a chicken or the egg dilemma, and the truth is probably found somewhere in the middle. Regardless, the book doesn't fully embrace an economic explanation in the same way Beard's book does, and I think the book was much better for it.

Having attested to its usefulness and value, I have to point out the grind reading the book is. Historians are not wordsmiths in most cases and Wood proves the point. The prose of the book is so utilitarian it can feel downright sterile. By far the most interesting passages in the book don't belong to Wood but to the historical personalities he quotes; unfortunately, far too many of their quotes were sliced and diced by Wood's commentaries and interpretations, but the reader may have been better served by reading the direct passage. By reading The Radicalism of the American Revolution the reader can expect an incredible and unique education—albeit not for beginners—on the American Revolution, but they can't expect anything but the most practical writing.

I liked The Radicalism of the American Revolution for what it is. There is plenty to be learned and gained from the book, but the authorship lacks the necessary style to make the history as unforgettable as it probably should be. It's nice to have in my collection, but reading it wasn't a particularly nice experience.

The Radicalism of the American Revolution won the Pulitzer Prize in 1993.

http://thethousanderclub.blogspot.com/

Nature of the American Nation: Analyzing Wood’s The Radicalism of the American Revolution
In The Radicalism of the American Revolution Gordon Wood seeks to explain both the origins and nature of American society by way of juxtaposing the colonial and early republic periods of American history in order to exemplify the sweeping changes which occur as American gains independence and forms a nationhood. This approach yields an account of thirteen distinct colonies that experience a simultaneous unification and restructuring, on a scale of which had not been known in any nation or colony at that moment. In searching for a valid explanation for the unique combination of events that befall the early American nation, Wood offers neither politics or the Revolutionary War, but a wave of social radicalism; a philosophical phenomenon that he asserts predates the commonly noted political rationale for these changes. Furthermore, Wood believes the social revolution he describes in detail should supersede the physical revolution against Great Britain in defining the history of the Early Republic; Wood proposes previously ignored strata of historical events—those he terms radical—are in fact the foundation of the American nation.

Wood moves in this direction despite the traditional tendency of historians to focus on the Revolutionary War and parallel political (republican) rhetoric as the key to understanding the transition between the colonialism and independence. In fact, Wood excludes the physical conflict—the Revolutionary War—from his analysis in preference for a revolution that was just as “radical and social as any revolution in history.” Instead of explaining the emergence of the American republic as being rooted in the Revolutionary War, Wood proposes instead that an American Revolution transpired simultaneously—a half century of social radicalism. In excluding the War, Wood moves away from the historical narratives that explain America as rising in the wake of a noble rebellion, instead suggesting the War for Independence is merely a and taking a bold and welcomed step in the direction of social history. First, Wood’s seeks to re-establish the meaning of the phrase American Revolution from a physical event to a philosophical one.

Wood is quite successful in demonstrating how in such a breviloquent epoch thirteen muddled colonies—each with different histories, philosophies and demographics—came to share a solidarity that first breaks with monarchial traditions, then embraces republicanism, and finally yields to democratic influences. Accordingly, Wood supports this thesis in three parts which focus respectively on those periods of monarchy, republicanism, and democracy. This format implies and allows for both a pattern of chronology and thematic change, but Wood is not implying a universal relationship between time and progress in the American nation. Wood’s argument relies on the emergence of the so-called “common man” as the American Republic dawns out of Monarchial society but subsequently consumes itself and leaves behind a commercially and self-interested dominated Democratic society. It is this result—democratic, self-interested, mob rule—that Wood asserts sent the founding fathers to their deaths unsatisfied with the state of the American nation.

Wood’s thesis is not invulnerable, however rich and colorful Wood’s scholarship might be. He fails to resolve any of the paradoxes which betray the American republic; namely women and African Americans. Wood also seems to underestimate the American aristocracy in placing an emphasis on the rise of the middle-class order and overstating the decline of elitist interests in American politics. While he successfully argues many valid points in establishing his radical revolution, the unresolved issues—slavery and treatment of women—reveals cracks in the foundation of his thesis.

Nowhere does Gordon Wood place more emphasis than on the significance of societal changes that occur in the early American republic.

I think the argument is fascinating, but the support can be very dry and narrow to pick through. You want to skip pages, but then you get lost.

Nevertheless, if you can stick it out, this almost-revisionist perspective on the Revolution is an important contribution to our sense of where we've come from.

An oldie but still a classic. Wood thoroughly explains how the new American republic broke from established English social and political hierarchies, and then how the rapidly growing young nation evolved from the idealistic philosophical vision of its founders. Great food for thought about how societies change.