The Radicalism of the American Revolution

I am currently reading, as part of Amazon's Vine Program, a prepublication copy of Gordon S. Wood's latest work, EMPIRE OF LIBERTY: A HISTORY OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC, 1789-1815, the latest volume in the Oxford History of the United States. I believe that it will go down as perhaps the finest, most essential work covering that period of American history. Excepting the particular historical details, there is little, however, in that work that is not already contained in embryo form in THE RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. I have for some time believed that Wood's book on the American Revolution is one of the great historical works in scholarship, one that provides as much insight into the founding of the nation as any book ever published. If you want to understand our nation, if you want to understand what is unique in the founding of the United States, this book is not only on the shortest of short lists, it is the first book on that list.

As Wood points out, many have regarded the American Revolution as a conservative one (not in the sense, however, of political conservativism), because many of what many have assumed were essential marks of any revolution were missing, such as class conflict, drastic poverty, and violent reconstruction of society. But as he carefully notes, the American Revolution was truly radical, in that it reshaped American society in the most extreme ways imaginable. Wood lays out in profound detail all the way the world was before, during, and after the Revolution. He explains both the ideals of the Founders and the ways the nation developed in ways that the Founders not only did not anticipate but did not -- at least those who lived long enough to see the new changes -- entirely approve.

Wood's story is built around three competing views of the political construction of society: monarchism, republicanism, and democracy. The shift from monarchism to republicanism was immense, but the shift from republicanism to democracy was as huge and as radical, though it redefined the nation in ways that few of the Founders could approve. The shift from monarchism to republicanism Wood represents through spacial metaphors. In a monarchy individuals in society understood themselves in terms of vertical relationships: their roles in society were defined by those who were immediately above them and those who were immediately below them. They had a place in society that they did not, could not escape. Relationships were determined, from above, by a system of patronage. In republicanism people came to understand themselves not vertically, but horizontally, as one among equals. Nevertheless there was a strong sense of citizens being first among equals, of individuals arising to a natural elite. This is where the Founders differed from what came afterwards. Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, even Jefferson and Madison, imagined a society in which a natural elite would help lead the government. As Wood remarks, the most famous of the Republicans (not to be confused with the later Republican party -- the early Republican party later because the Democratic Republican party, and thereafter the Democratic party under the leadership of Martin Van Buren, while the Federalists died away, many of them helping to form the Whig party, which collapsed in the 1850s, with many Whigs going on to join the new liberal political party, the Republicans -- the story of how the Democratic party started off as the liberal party, became the American conservative party, and then became the more liberal party again is another story, just as the transformation of the Republicans as a liberal party under Lincoln later became a conservative party under Taft, Harding, and Coolidge), Thomas Jefferson, became increasingly despairing in his later years as uneducated, barely literate, and utterly everyday individuals came to lead the country. But the overall change in society -- from a vertical society in which paternalistic relationships dominated, to a horizontal society in which everyday individuals predominated could not have been more profound.

Gordon Wood cannot be surpassed for his knowledge of the Revolutionary generation or the early republic. All of his books are important for an understanding of that period, but along with his new entry in the Oxford History of the United States, THE RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION is perhaps his very best.

This book provides a very interesting social history of America from the decades before the American Revolution to the 1830s. Wood illustrates the significant social changes that took place during this period and attributes them to the American Revolution itself. However, he clearly indicates that the changes went far beyond what the leaders of the Revolution had intended. In brief, American society changed from a socially rigid monarchical society to a fully democratic, egalitarian society after passing through a brief period of idealistic republicanism.

Some reviewers have criticized Wood for exaggerating the differences in social interactions and attitudes before and after the Revolution. I think these reviewers are taking too narrow a view of the American Revolution, identifying it with the Revolutionary War of 1775-1783; if we view the Revolution as a social phenomenon the way Wood does in this book, then we could argue that it started around 1763 (the end of the Seven Years War) and lasted until 1808 (the end of Jefferson's Presidency). There certainly were enormous social changes between these dates. Furthermore, the ideological arguments that justified the political changes did generate or accelerate many of the social changes. In any case, the changes did take place, even if during a longer period of time.

Since other reviewers have done a good job describing the book, I won't do so myself. However, I would like to compare it with Wood's "The Creation of the American Republic, 1776 -1787" from 1969. You might be wondering whether you really need to buy and read both of these books. If you're interested in this period of American history, then my answer is an unqualified "yes". The two books are actually quite different in their focus. While the other book tracks the political developments that occurred during the American Revolution, this book focuses much more on the social changes that took place.

You might also wonder which of these books to read first. Since this one was written later (1991), reading it second has a certain logic and is what I did; but you could read them in either order, perhaps guided by your personal interest or time constraints. (RotAR is under 400 pages while CotAR is over 600 pages.) Neither book is a prerequisite for the other. Read both books and you'll certainly learn a lot about this period of American history.

This book is a big ask for the reader in terms of time, attention and patience. Particularly for the armchair historian like myself, it can be very heavy going. But worth it, I think. The main thesis of the book-- that the American revolution was radical despite its relative peacefulness-- may no longer be as new or shocking as it was (apparently) in 1993. That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot to be learned. I was particularly interested in the way Wood portrayed the different stages of thought behind the revolution, and the way that the ideals changed and progressed over time. The different roads that it could have (almost did?) travel are well-explored. Wood's picture of life in Revolutionary-era US is vivid and wide. If the reader can get over the initial fear of the academic tone and the little tiny print, it becomes (dare I say?) entertaining reading, almost funny in places.

I would have appreciated an annotated bibliography with pointers to further reading, but I've come to accept that with books like these that is simply too much to expect.

If you're interested in the material, then don't be put off by the length or density of the prose. Well worth persevering.

Gordon Wood's qualifications as an historian of American colonial and revolutionary history rank with Edmund Morgan [The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89 (The Chicago History of American Civilization)] and Bernard Bailyn (The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution). His `Radicalism of the American Revolution' sets forth his thesis that the American Revolution, contrary to its reputation in some quarters as a mere war of independence and generally conservative in nature, fundamentally changed American society. By the end of the revolutionary era, America had transitioned from a deferential society subject to rule by an aristocracy to a republican one governed by elected elites to a rowdy democracy dominated by commerce.

Wood's book is challenging both in the sense of being difficult and in the sense of questioning accepted wisdom (at least as it was when he first published the book in 1993). A sound grounding in the history of the era is almost a prerequisite; this is not a narrative history marching from event to event. Wood's main focus is on social change, not to say upheaval, and he slowly, even indirectly, builds his case. Specific events are referenced illustratively to demonstrate a point he has developed over many pages. (In this way, the book called to mind one of my law school professors, Mark Tushnet (Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts), who often took several lectures to develop one critical insight. Lose track briefly and you would be lost in the woods for days.)

Wood (no relation, but tastefully named) makes a compelling case. In a nub, Wood credits the revolution because the dramatic changes occurred while America remained rural and preindustrial. Very high recommendation for any reader interested in history, whether generally or of the American revolution. Radicalism of the American Revolution is a book that warrants and demands your full attention, if not a second reading.

Not a book about battles & generals. This is a book about the Revolution of Ideas that sparked the war. Every student of history should have this on his/her bookshelf.