“To appreciate the extent of change that took place in the Revolution, we have to re-create something of the old colonial society that was subsequently transformed.”

In a way this book is a sequel to his earlier book The Creation of the American Republic, where among other things he begins to discuss and understand the role that republicanism played in the early republic. This book is a continuation of that discussion and in a lot of ways carries on the ideas of the first book, and in other ways upends them. By starting out with trying to understand the social fabric of the pre-revolutionary colonies, Woods discusses a shift in the everyday life of most of the people in the colonies, and changing attitudes. The attitudes themselves didn’t change, so much as open up and create tension with a variety of competing ideas. In general, tension among competing ideas has consistently played a role in American culture and American politics since. The ideas include the emerging and then growing concept of republicanism, ie that people living in a society are no longer subjects, but citizens, and that there should not only be the guarantee of basic rights, but the continuing creation of more personal liberty as well as a continued hand in the politics of the country. So this tension is less about representation, and more and more about participation, and participating beyond voting.

One of the ways that Wood defines the previously held ideas is to introduce the ways in which paternalism functioned in various fields in the colonies. At the basic level, men held paternity over their wives and their children, and by extension the various hands, servants, employees, and of course enslaved people. The government then held its own version of this paternalism. This means that people owed fealty and allegiance to the pater figures, and in turn, the pater figures protected and provided for those under them. But as the country began shifting toward more republican views (and again, this isn’t everyone necessarily or entirely, but more of these views become more common and become part of a pluralist set of values), the shifts happened at both these personal relationships and political relationships.

In addition, as the structures of the English class system continued fell from the colonies, so to did the inherent respect toward one’s better (especially in heavily structured caste systems of English class — of course the American racial caste held steady and continues to hold steady in its ways ), the idea of gentlemen shifted from non-noble titled men to a more amorphous men with property. Official titles like lord, your honor, and esquire, begin to give way to the idea of “mister” which is lateral in its respect.

These are some of the changes that begin to show up culturally, that then play into the construction and development of the representational ideas of government. Because the American republic is a product of its time, and for all its faults, these ideas held influence in that formation. The radicalism that Wood is getting at comes from how unrevolutionary a lot of this process is (meaning that while the changes are significant, they happened before, usually gradually, and culturally first). He also suggests that this opening of things led to later social movements, and I would argue that their innate gradualism instilled a permanent sense of gradualism in social change that we still have today and is a frustrating part of the republic

This work provides context and support to argue persuasively that the American Revolution was a sharp break from the past in conscious favor of a meritocratic future. The author points out that the Founders sought to end monarchical-style dependencies in society to be replaced with meritocratic republicanism. The Revolution went beyond those visions to create an America even more democratic and egalitarian.

Highly recommended to all who want a thorough understanding of our American Revolution.

This book does a really good job explaining the dramatic cultural changes prmopted by the American revolution. I came away from this read persuaded by the writer's thesis.

The writer argues that the revolution wasn't strictly a change to the self-rule of democratic government but also a transformation of society. The argument goes that society was composed largely into cultural elites with high manners, learning, and property, and a laboring mass with little learning, a meanness of character, and a strong work ethic but no political voice of their own with one.

For a period of time, by effect the revolution eliminated both extremes in the culture with a large middle-class group of white males that gained its voice, its own education and its own work ethic, and the freedom and equality to act for their own independence, prosperity and happiness. The notion that there became a middle class and that these pursuits were available for this new class is a really radical outcome of the revolution.

This book is written with a somewhat scholarly bent and is a somewhat harder read than books by historians such as David McCullough or Stephen Ambrose.

I recommend this book to those with a strong interest in the role of history on America today.

I read this book for a revolution class and thought it was really good. I loved how analytical and factual the book is. However, it feels dry at times. If you aren’t into nonfiction or narratives I would avoid this book. As a lover of the American Revolution and fan of history, I thought the book was well done and a good insight on the American Revolution as a whole.

Argues (i) political ideas of the revolution had radical effects (ii) founders wanted republicanism, virtue, & reason, but got democracy, greed, & evangelicalism.

Good, not great. So much detail but so dry at times, the ending really pulled it full circle and wrapped it up nicely but there were moments that just outright couldn’t have possibly been drier to read, a lot of repetition at times it felt. I know this is likely as a result of the subject matter being so dense but man could it have been better at a lot of parts.

Overall interesting perspective and very throughly researched and written.

Quite frankly, this book is one of the most pedantic books I have ever read. The level of detail that Wood includes with regards 17th, 18th, and early 19th century American life leaves the reader feeling like no cobblestone was left unturned. Yet out of all of this pedantry and careful analysis of seemingly inconsequential minutia, a pretty incredible narrative of the transformation of American society emerges from the monarchical founding of the colonies to Jacksonian Democracy.

Provocative, Hegelian, and ultimately flawed. Pretty good read though.

This book made me an Americanist. I used to be a French historian and then became a British historian. This book made me cross the pond to US history because it showed how British and the Americans were before the American revolution.

Wood paints an incredibly vivid picture of post-revolution America into the middle 1800s. As Thomas Paine said, "virtue is not inherited," and the American revolution was fought against hereditary aristocracy. Gordon writes, "Equality was the most radical and powerful ideological force let loose in the revolution" and "White males had taken too seriously the belief that they were free and equal to pursue their happiness."

The forefathers believed that people would have a “gentle and forgiving spirit” but we're now in need of a 21st century enlightenment. The founding fathers who lived to see this play out into the 18th century were disillusioned by the anti-intellectualism and promotion of private interests that continues to this day. Federalists have been hypocritical of their self interests and private affairs since the 18th century and Trump would have fit right in. The revolutionaries didn’t realize how devastating republicanism would be to their children and grandchildren.

"It was increasingly clear that no one was really in charge of this gigantic, enterprising, restless nation." In 1791, James Madison worried the sprawling extent of the U.S. would make each individual insignificant in his own eyes, a circumstance he thought unfavorable to liberty. Everything was left to the reader, listener, voter, or buyer to decide, which is an extraordinary weight placed on individual judgement.

Reading this book, it is easy to see how we got to what Tom Nichols describes in his excellent book, The Death of Expertise. The result of all these assaults on elite opinion and celebrations of common ordinary judgement was a dispersion of truth itself to a degree the world had never before seen. Liberty included liberty to hold an opinion on any topic, including topics people have no knowledge on. Truth in America has become public opinion. This was something that was clear to Gordon Wood in 1993 when this book was published and it won the Pulitzer Prize.

4.5 stars

There were some chapters that made my eyes glaze over (Benevolence, Interests), but others (Enlightenment) were fascinating. I was expecting more of a political history, or even something that would touch on military exploits, but this is a social and intellectual history. The war itself is not discussed. The first section (Monarchy) describes the social structure of the colonies at about mid-century (1750) and lays the foundations for the next two sections (Republicanism, Democracy), which relate the way Revolutionary ideas disrupted and upended the societal order.

If you're tired of hearing people argue on behalf of American exceptionalism, quote them this:

The revolutionary generation was the most cosmopolitan of any in American history. The revolutionary leaders never intended to make a national revolution in any modern sense. They were patriots, to be sure, but they were not obsessed, as were later generations, with the unique character of America or with separating America from the course of Western civilization. As yet there was no sense that loyalty to one's state or country was incompatible with such cosmopolitanism.

(p. 222)

And if you meet people who insist America was founded as a Christian nation, please, citizens, read them this:

At the time of the Revolution most of the founding fathers had not put much emotional stock in religion, even when they were regular churchgoers. As enlightened gentlemen, they abhorred "that gloomy superstition disseminated by ignorant illiberal preachers" and looked forward to the day when "the phantom of darkness will be dispelled by the rays of science, and the bright charms of rising civilization." At best, most of the revolutionary gentry only passively believed in organized Christianity and, at worst, privately scorned and ridiculed it. Jefferson hated orthodox clergymen, and he repeatedly denounced the "priestcraft" for having converted Christianity into "an engine for enslaving mankind, ...into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves." Although few of them were outright deists, most like David Ramsay described the Christian church as "the best temple of reason." Even puritanical John Adams thought that the argument for Christ's divinity was an "awful blasphemy" in this new enlightened age. When Hamilton was asked why the members of the Philadelphia Convention had not recognized God in the Constitution, he allegedly replied, speaking for many of his liberal colleagues, "We forgot."

(p. 330)

The book ends with a fascinating appraisal of how the Founding Fathers viewed what America had become - what the Revolution had wrought. In many cases they were disappointed, or even horrified and disgusted. They had designed a nation based on elitist virtue and classical ideals, with religion held in check; but the nation they now saw was deeply religious and sectarian, increasingly irrational and superstitious, commercialized and money-obsessed, anti-intellectual, socially crass, politically vulgar. George Washington "had lost all hope for democracy." Alexander Hamilton opined that "this American world was not made for me." John Adams bewailed the halt in the "progress of the human mind." Thomas Jefferson saw America going backwards, not forwards. Benjamin Rush viewed his Revolutionary efforts "with deep regret" and could not find a man who loved the Constitution.

One of the best books I've ever read about the American Revolution and its significance in world history. As any good history book should do, it explains so much about where we are now as a country. I flagged a bunch of pages, which I don't often do, unless I'm a student, and I even made a list of other topics Wood covers that I want to investigate further. It's a terrific book, a real classic.