Revolutionary Characters by Gordon Wood

Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different by Gordon Wood is a book for fairly serious American Revolutionary era history buffs. If one is indeed such an aficionado, this is a thought provoking and fun read.

Wood’s book consists of a series of essays, each concerning a different major American Founder. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and Aaron Burr are all covered. For the most part, the pieces are not biographical sketches; instead they are analyses of the public personas of each of the men. Therefore, I would not recommend this book to readers who have only a cursory interest in the men or the era. Some of the essays, particularly the one that covers John Adams and his political theories, dig into fairly intricate concepts and issues of the time.

In several linking essays, Wood explains that the public image of these men was of the utmost importance both to the men themselves as well as the public at large. All of these men considered themselves enlightened gentleman of their times. The author argues that in this era, society did not look to or esteem private personalities. Thus, a “constructed” public personality, as long as it was kept consistent in public, was not considered disingenuous or undesirable; in fact, to some degree, private or inner character was disregarded as unimportant.

These men all spent their early years striving to become part of the enlightened elite. They rejected what at the time were traditional conceptions of hereditary elitism of the old aristocracy. Instead, the conception of a “gentleman” involved reaching, through one’s own devices, a level of education, morality and manors that placed a man above the masses of society.

Wood writes,

“To be a gentleman was to think and act like a gentleman, nothing more, an immensely radical belief with implications that few foresaw. It meant being reasonable, tolerant, honest, virtuous, and “candid,” an important eighteenth-century characteristic that connoted being unbiased and just as well as frank and sincere. Being a gentleman was the prerequisite to becoming a political leader. It signified being cosmopolitan, standing on elevated ground in order to have a large view of human affairs, and being free of the prejudices, parochialism, and religious enthusiasm of the vulgar and barbaric. It meant, in short, having all those characteristics that we today sum up in the idea of a liberal arts education.”

In addition to striving to attain the status of a gentleman, Wood explains that the Founders highly valued the concept of “disinterestedness”.  A virtuous leader needed to be wealthy enough that they did not need to work or even concern themselves with making money. In theory, only a person who was rich enough not to have interest in the profit motive could be trusted with the reigns of government. Not all of the Founders disliked mercantilism (some, like Thomas Jefferson, despised it) but most believed that it was inappropriate for a businessperson to be a politician.

Wood describes this concept,

“We today have lost most of this earlier meaning. Even educated people now use disinterested as a synonym for uninterested, meaning “indifferent or unconcerned.” It is almost as if we cannot quite imagine someone who is capable of rising above a pecuniary interest and being unselfish or impartial where an interest might be present.

In the eighteenth-century Anglo-American world gentlemen believed that only independent individuals, free of interested ties and paid by no masters, could practice such virtue. It was thought that those who had occupations and had to work strenuously for a living lacked the leisure for virtuous public leadership.”

Within this framework of a disinterested gentleman, all of the Founders, either through their own machinations or through external impositions, had constructed public personas. These characters, how they came to be, what they represented, how they affected history, etc. are generally the subjects of Wood’s essays. Each piece digs fairly deep into the analysis of Wood’s subject. Having read fairly extensively on these men and the era previously, I feel that Wood’s essays provided depth as well as both familiar and unique perspectives, though I do not agree with all of Wood’s conclusions.

One of many interesting points here was that there were always exceptions to the rules. Wood argues that Paine’s public persona did not fit that of a gentleman and Burr’s persona did not appear to be “disinterested.”

As one final irony pointed out by Wood, the nation and society that these men helped to create, that of powerful mercantile interests, an economy propelled by the acquisition of material goods and common people (though only white males) participating in political and social discussion and debate, had little interest in electing disinterested gentleman as political leaders. Thus, Wood convincingly argues that all subsequent generations of American political leaders were of a very different breed from that of the Founders.

Though not an introduction to the American Founders, this work provides important and, at least for me, intriguing information on the personalities, philosophies, perceptions and accomplishments of these very important people. There are a lot of detailed and interesting musings within the essays that I cannot come close to delving into within a single blog post. Highly recommended for those interested in the period as well as in the history of government.

The Following Posts cover related subjects:

Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph Ellis

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson

Burr Verses Hamilton: Two Views

Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr by Nancy Isenberg

Thomas Jefferson:The Art of Power by John Meacham

Radicalism and the American Revolution by Gordon Wood

Reading Gordon Wood

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life

I just finished Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson. I highly recommend this one. It is fairly comprehensive, yet very readable account of Franklin’s life. Like most worthwhile biographies, it contains a multitude of ideas worth pondering.

One of Isaacson’s principle themes is that Franklin was a supreme thinker, but he was a mostly practice thinker. He had very little interest in higher-level concepts. This was true for all of Franklin’s various pursuits including science, philosophy, theology, politics, etc. For instance, Franklin’s writings encouraged various “good” and efficient behavior aimed at making a person a success. Abstract and metaphysical concepts relating to this behavior, such as virtue, Forms, pleasing God, etc., had little place in Franklin’s worldview.  Isaacson makes a strong case that Franklin could be pigeonholed into a class of practical men who have little inclination to theorize about such nonconcrete ideas.

Reading the Franklin biography, I was struck by the diversity of fields that man successfully delved into. He was truly a Renaissance Man. This Founding Farther made important contributions to philosophy, science, newspaper publishing, business, and American Society in general. Furthermore it can be argued, and Isaacson does, that Franklin achieved one of, and perhaps the greatest, diplomatic success in American history. He was the architect of the alliance with France that was essential for the survival of the young United States. On top of this, his role in the creation of the Declaration of independence as well as the Drafting of the US Constitution had a profound effect upon American History as well current events. If one looks at the political happenings of the current American government, one we see a process partially shaped by Franklin.

I think that it is inconceivable that a citizen of the 21^st century could achieve this level of success in so many diverse areas as Franklin did. I would argue that there was detailed knowledge relating to these various fields back in the 18^th century, thus making it easier to be so accomplished in such a wide variety of pursuits.

I also believe that the world was more tolerant of generally smart people poking around in professions with no formal training or education back then. Just imagine a successful newspaper publisher and/or columnist today deciding to conduct research in electrical engineering, with no formal background in the field!

I am not minimizing Franklin’s accomplishments. He was a genius. His genius was just very compatible with his time.

Anyone with additional interest in Franklin’s great diplomatic success in Europe might also try with Stacy Schiff’s A Great Improvisation: Franklin, France, and the Birth of America. I read Schiff’s book about a year ago. It is an intricately detailed account of Franklin’s mission to France from 1776 to 1785. Since her work covers such a specialized topic, I would say that Schiff’s book is for those who have a serious curiosity in that diplomatic endeavor.