Reddit reviews The Radicalism of the American Revolution
We found 10 Reddit comments about The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Vintage
I'd also recommend Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution. It's very much about social and demographic conditions that affected the structure and philosophy of colonial society before and after the war. As far as how Americans thought of community I think it's a slam dunk. He goes very in detail about how things like the family unit changes, how Americans viewed the hierarchical class structure, and how they perceive and expand upon republican ideas about government post-war.
https://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883
The American Constitution itself is really considered the first of it's kind. There are many things that influenced the Constitution, and gave the Constitution it's name.
The founding of the American Republic - and the constitution - was strongly influenced by the Roman Republic. The framers studied classical history extensively and often looked at the "Constitutio" which where edicts, decrees and rescripts that governed the Roman Republic and later empire.The Roman constitution was not a single document, but rather a series of precedents and traditions that formed the structure in which the government operated. Later the Roman Emperor declared the Constitutio Antoniniana, which granted citizenship to freemen living in the Roman Republic.
I believe (and I am a American history student, not a roman history) that using the term to describe the core laws that was popularized by Livy's Ab Urbe condita which described the history of the Roman Republic. Later the term described edicts from the emperor, and the most important decrees by the Pope (Apostolic constitution) starting in the 1570s.
The idea of the constitution being a legal contract was influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract. The Magna Carta, which restricted the powers of government, and the "British Constitution" which like the roman Constitution was mainly tradition based were also influential, and led to the idea that authority could be granted by agreement rather then by princely authority.
The early colonies where created on the basis of charters that granted colonies under the authority of the government of England. In 1630, the settlers of Connecticut formed their government not based off of the external charter, but instead drafted the "Fundamental Orders." When the colonies declared independence, they chose likewise to replace the defunct charters with documents, which they called "Constitutions"
Sources -
Ab Urbe condita - http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/livius/trans1.html
The Social Contract: http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm
The Radicalism of the American Revolution: http://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883
The Creaton of the American Republic: http://www.amazon.com/The-Creation-American-Republic-1776-1787/dp/0807847232/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0CZ9HPT323HSRGHGG1WG
Ancient Rome in America: http://shc.stanford.edu/news/research/ancient-rome-america
The Founders and the Classics
For understanding modern world history, Eric Hobsbawm is the best starting point.
Hobsbawm is a Marxist historian and it shows in his work. But even the deeply conservative Niall Ferguson wrote that "his great tetralogy . . . remains the best introduction to modern world history in the English language."
The other modern world history I want to mention is [The Birth of the Modern World] (http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Modern-World-1780-1914/dp/0631236163/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374136637&sr=1-1&keywords=birth+of+the+modern+world). It offers another perspective on the "long 19th century" and, as it is written by a very conservative historian forty years after The Age of Revolution, a nice contrast/counterbalance to Hobsbawm's work.
[A History of the Middle East] (http://www.amazon.com/History-Middle-East-Peter-Mansfield/dp/0143034332/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374137117&sr=8-1&keywords=history+of+the+middle+east) is a great introduction to Middle Eastern history and politics which is unbiased, factual, and comprehensive.
[The Great Chinese Revolution 1800-1985] (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Chinese-Revolution-1800-1985/dp/006039076X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137415&sr=1-2&keywords=great+revolution+china) is an excellent book on the birth of modern China. In it, John King Fairbank tries to show the dynamism of Chinese society and that western forces have had much less influence than the western historians who have framed the traditional story seem to believe.
US History
In terms of the American Revolution, there are obvious illustrations of the three "sparks" to successful revolutions. But historians have been arguing pretty much since the thing happened as to why it happened, and it's just as possible that all of these events weren't strictly causal, or causal in any sense.
Violent Act
We all know this one - the Boston Massacre, March 5, 1770, which occurred after British troops entered Boston in order to enforce the new taxation under the Townshend Acts (and in general to keep the peace, since there were factions in Boston that were SUPER rowdy.
Why was this perhaps not a watershed act?
Look at the date - it occurred very early in the "revolutionary process, and also didn't lead to any sort of organizing between colonies, or too much outside of Boston at all. It might have been used as a call to arms later, once rebels needed ideas to rally around, but since the Revolution's first "battles" didn't occur until April 19, 1775, it's hard to say that people were sufficiently "outraged" enough to act. . . unless they got suuuper mad and decided to bide their time for five years.
But there's also the Gaspee Affair, which was the specific event that many pointed to that caused colonial leadership to form the Committees of Correspondence, which would go on to become our own "Rebel Alliance" kind of organization. The HMS Gaspee was a small British ship used to check trade ships in and out of the Providence Harbor, collecting customs and making sure they weren't smuggling. While chasing another ship owned by Providence colonials, it ran aground, and several men took the opportunity to loot it, and ended up shooting the Lieutenant in charge and burning the ship to the ground.
Why wasn't this the single, outrageous violent act really?
Because no one in the colonies reacted with outrage at the violence, nor did the British. The British decided to take steps they had before ignored, and the perpetrators were taken back to London for trial, instead of left to the courts in the colonies. THIS was what enraged many of the more liberal colonists at the time - the prospect of being shipped back to England to be tried in "Kangaroo Courts" was what got everyone's pantaloons in a twist.
I think you can also point, ironically enough, to the Powder Alarm, a false alarm that was not violent at all. British troops removed large stores of gunpowder from a store outside Boston. Gossip spread like wildfire that the troops had killed men while raiding and taking the gunpowder, and newspapers and popular pamphlets at the time started actually calling for war. This happened in Fall of '74, and was, according to first hand accounts at the time (which can be misleading), the reason why many of the colonial militias were formed.
So violent act to spark a revolution?
Not exactly, since the rumors were completely untrue, and no one got hurt in the raid at all. This, of course, didn't stop people from continuing on towards the skirmishes that historians later called the beginning of the revolution, since they were already so fired up about past events, thanks to firebrand pamphleteers and newspapers at the time.
Okay - Outside nations applying pressure
I feel like this whole point is a bit of a cop out. When AREN'T outside nations applying some sort of pressure? What isolationist country at what period in history wasn't being prodded or outright shoved in some way by its neighbors/far-off frenemies/new weird explorers? And Great Britain, (GB), even more than most, it seems. Obviously, England was in a tight bind financially because of the Seven Year's War they fought on an international scale with France/Spain. That's what led to the taxation and new strict enforcement on the American colonies, which most historians agree in some way or another incited or incentivized rebellious action and thoughts on the parts of many colonials. But when hadn't Great Britain been under pressure from its European rivals - I think you have to go back past Hadrian's Wall for an example . . . not my expertise, but I don't think the period of the American Revolution was that unique in the fact that GB felt domestic pressure because of international issues. It's GB - they're constantly just getting hassled.
Regime grows old and weak
This is the part I just can't buy. You can MAYBE argue that culturally, GB had grown weaker in the colonies. Some historians say that the sheer distance and laissez-faire attitude of British governance of the colonies created a rift that separated early colonists from British political and social culture, and allowed for the future misunderstanding and frustration that occurred once the British government decided to get back involved post-Seven Years War.
So why so hard to believe?
Because the regime was the opposite of old and weak for the rebellious forces. The catalyst to revolt was literally the regime strengthening itself in America. People can feel free to argue, but the cause of the British moving back into America was not a defensive posture because they felt that colonists were a threat or might revolt. They didn't feel weak relative to the colonies, and the colonies didn't think they were weak. They also just weren't, even financially crippled as they were, crippled in a way that should have left them vulnerable to a bunch of colonial rapscalions.
Instead, they moved back in like absentee parents turning over a new, disciplinarian wing. They became stronger, more involved, and more desirous of direct governance in all of their colonies, and America was no exception. Different historians will tell you different reasons why* colonists responded in the way they did (saw an economic opportunity, wanted to live up to the old Lockean ideals that they'd brought over with them 150 years before, just wanted FREEDOM like any good 'Murican) but what got them to respond was not British susceptibility, but renewed vigor and strength.
TLDR: So do I think this model applies to the American Revolution? If you want it to, I think the model is general enough that it can apply to anything. But I think you can very soundly also argue that it really doesn't apply here as well, and I think that you're probably going to find that's the case in most examples of Revolution. That's why historiography exists, and why most historians/history majors spend most of their time angrily discussing minute moments of history and the different potential causes and effects behind them -- until we get a time machine and some pretty omnipotent comprehension abilities, that's all we can really do.
I have no problem with his work being used as a supplement as, I agree, we shouldn't sweep our mistakes under the carpet. As was said by George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
However, to your point on calling him revisionist. Perhaps you are correct that historians, typically weren't actually there so it's technically their version. But, this doesn't mean that facts can be presented more or less accurately or with an intended agenda behind them that distorts. Take the following passage in the beginning of Chapter 4 on the American Revolution. I would argue that it may not be revisionist but it sure is way outside the mainstream and incredibly disingenuous. See Gordon Wood and David McCullough for just 2 historians who I feel present a FAR more accurate portrayal of that time period.
“Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from the favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.
When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command.”
He mentions Gordan Wood multiple times, and he is most well known for his Pulitzer Prize winning book, Radicalism of the American Revolution. In that book, his thesis is that the American Revolution was truly revolutionary and not just the conservative transference of power from one ruling class to another. I'm about to graduate with a history degree, and if there is any specific period or subject you'd like some info on, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction.
These are few nonfiction books that I've enjoyed reading this year:
Proust Was a Neuroscientist by Jonah Lehrer
America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar
In the Land of Invented Languages by Arika Okrent
The Radicalism of the American Revolution by Gordon S. Wood
Power, Faith and Fantasy is a well-written and very relevant account of American involvement in the mid-east.
Race and Reunion is perhaps more of a cultural text, but it explores the Civil War and its lasting effects on our national identity.
Radicalism of the American Revolution is a great look at that era and the philosophical underpinnings of America.
And there's always Noam Chomsky, who writes illuminating books about past and present American policy.
Well it did and it didn't. Considering that the US had the most egalitarian government in the world at the time (afaik), that (most) white men could vote was already a huge step. We tend to think of the American revolution as being one of the haute-bourgeosie (especially compared to the petty bourgeoisie of the French revolution), but most Loyalists were explicitly of the old European aristocratic class. The American revolution, then, was arguably one that was more long-term damaging to the ancien regime because, well, it did actually allow those "white landowning men" to vote.
Also, that completely ignores the divisions amongst the founding fathers. There were both radical voices (a la Jefferson) who wanted more devolution to the common man, and nigh-reactionary voices (a la Hamilton) who either wanted an American Monarchy or at the very least a government that was almost wholly separate from the individual.
There's a book I'd recommend on the topic, Gordon Woods' The Radicalism of the American Revolution. It's a little behind the times on the scholarship, but insofar as we have a consensus on how much the American revolution actually moved the needle towards human liberty it's really a lodestar.
This is my favorite:
https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Brothers-Revolutionary-Joseph-Ellis/dp/0375705244
Another, very predictable one!
https://www.amazon.com/1776-David-McCullough/dp/0743226712/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=Z1QBK7D5EDQXNGWDEABX
This one was surprisingly good, but I read it a long time ago:
https://www.amazon.com/Redcoats-Rebels-American-Revolution-Through/dp/0393322939/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103441&sr=1-1&keywords=redcoats+%26+rebels+the+american+revolution+through+british+eyes
Basically a kids book but I LOVED it!
https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Courage-Revolutionary-Adventures-Joseph/dp/1444351354/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103555&sr=1-3&keywords=plumb+martin
This too! (Actually embarrassing, but again, a GREAT read! Probably totally supports your point as this list grows!)
https://www.amazon.com/Yankee-Doodle-Boy-Adventures-Revolution/dp/082341180X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103555&sr=1-4&keywords=plumb+martin
https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Revolutionary-Began-Landmark-Books/dp/0375822003/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103676&sr=1-3&keywords=liberty%21
Here's one I started and never finished but was looking very interesting:
https://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883/ref=sr_1_17?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103778&sr=1-17&keywords=history+of+the+american+revolution