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

Radicalism and the American Revolution by Gordon Wood

I very much enjoyed Gordon Wood’s Radicalism and the American Revolution.  This book is not for every reader, however.  I would only recommend Wood’s work for those with a very serious interest in the topics covered.  These subjects include the American Revolution, the history of government, as well as the social changes that occurred in Western Civilization during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.  If one does have an abiding interest in these areas, then Radicalism and the American Revolution is a must read.

Wood’s book does not present a straightforward narrative; instead it provides facts, statistics and a lot of quotations from the period of roughly 1750 to 1830.  This information is woven together to produce suppositions.  These hypotheses are often convincing and are always fascinating.  The entire basis of the work runs counter to the somewhat popular argument that the American Revolution was not a revolution at all, but only a war for independence.  Wood also refutes the contention that even if the American Revolution was a political revolution, it was not a social revolution.  The author presents his case that during this era, America experienced massive political, social, philosophical, demographic and economic changes that were comparable to other great upheavals.

Wood illustrates how this period in American history brought about enormous alteration in the social structure and hierarchy that was ingrained into American society.  Most relationships, starting with a the personal connections that many people perceived that they had to the king, to local government, as well as to their own families, were radically transformed.  Society changed from a structure of vertical, patriarchal connections to a system of horizontal relationships and coalitions.

Additionally, Wood points out how the American Revolutionary period brought about great changes in government, demographics, and economics.  Everything, from the way parents raised their children to the way commerce was conducted, from the way Americans received and evaluated information to even table manners, to name just a few points, metamorphosed during this period.

All of these changes that took place during the early 1800s produced an amazingly dynamic, individualistic and egalitarian society that bubbled with ideas and commerce.  This society was unique in the world and had a major impact on how the present day world came to be.

Wood does point out that this dynamism and the advantages that it bestowed was mostly restricted to white men.  He does address and explore the implications that these changes had on women, African–American slaves and Native Americans.  The author does not shy away from enormous contradictions between this flowering of liberty that benefitted some groups and the horrors of slavery and other evils that were present at this time.  He attempts to explain how these vast incongruities could exist.  He further explores what effect the revolution had on various movements such as abolition and women’s rights.

 Somewhat controversially, Wood contends that, like most revolutions, the changes in America ran well beyond what its original instigators ever intended.  I will further explore this point in more detail below.  Thus, Wood contends that while not as violent or mob driven as the French Revolution and other similar events, this American experience was just as radical.

 As with many good books, there are too many ideas in Radicalism and the American Revolution to comprehensively delve into within a single blog post.  As I am fond of doing, I will concentrate upon what was for me one of many fascinating points found in the book.  This topic revolves around the political theory and history of Classical Republicanism as interpreted by the revolutionary generation.  I need to mention that I believe the ideology ascribed by Wood as “Classical Republicanism” that was espoused by many of America’s founders is not entirely congruous with the other historical characterizations of this ideology that I have run into.  I am confining my discussion to Wood’s definition and interpretation here.

Classical Republicanism, at least during this era, was premised on the preposition that anyone who had strong “interest” in society, particularly economic interests, was unfit to govern and lead. The self-interested individual would only advocate for and support policies that were advantageous to that person and his peers.

Instead, government should be comprised of men who were “uninterested”.  Such men would impartially judge among the competing interests that existed in society.  This leadership class should also be composed of the best educated and the most virtuous citizens.  Who could possibly meet these requirements?  Many of the founders believed that such headship should be drawn from a special group of the wealthy and elite.

This group was comprised of men of propriety wealth.  In theory, these rich landowners controlled vast estates that provided a steady source of wealth and income that required little management.  These property owners, numerous in Virginia but present in various forms in all of the states, were considered to be independent of mercantile, speculative and other capitalistic pursuits.  Such economic disinterest would put this class of men above any personal ambitions for profit and allow them to be fair arbiters of society.  Instead of representing particular groups, these leaders would represent everyone.  These men were also usually well educated and considered by some to be the most honorable members of society.  This new elite would replace the old aristocracy and monarchy that was swept aside by the revolution.

Lest one err in concluding that this dream of Classical Republicanism came to be in an America that for much of its history has been dominated by moneyed interests, the Classical Republicans did not believe that capitalists or businessmen should ever be allowed to govern society. Contrary to the wealthy estate holders who, it was supposed, did not need to do anything to assure their income, citizens who were involved in mercantilism or speculation were some of the most interested people around and were thus not trustworthy enough for government service.

Many of the Classical Republicans held an enormous distrust for the lower classes and the dangers of mob rule, and were particularly opposed to universal male suffrage.  However, a social and political structure led by uninterested men whose actions were exemplary and beyond reproof would help to encourage virtue in all layers of society, and thus help to pacify members of the lower classes.  The behavior of the elite would be the model for all classes.  Hard work, frugality, education and civility would be highly valued by everyone in such a nation.

To some extent, Classical Republicanism government may have operated more or less as intended during the administration of George Washington.  Washington was in many ways the epitome of the disinterested elite and virtuous republican.  He was not only a wealthy land owner, but on many occasions he honestly strived to rise above the fray and act the disinterested leader who looked beyond parochial interests for what he believed to be the good of all society.

Wood argues that the formulation of the United States Constitution in 1787 was in part an attempt by the Federalists, who championed the idea of Classical Republicanism to defend and solidify their chosen system.  The Constitution included such bastions of Classical Republicanism as a Senate elected by state legislatures, a powerful executive chosen not by the people but by electors, as well as Supreme Court Justices who served for life. Wood points out that the Constitution failed to enshrine this system as intended. Many history and government scholars and buffs, including at times myself, have extoled the genius that the founders showed in crafting this document.  If we accept Wood’s contention, at least in this respect, the Constitution was a failure in the eyes of its creators!

Of course, this version of Classical Republicanism was an interesting theory of government that was based upon false premises.  For one thing the American landed elite never were so secure as to be able to disregard all capitalistic and speculative pursuits.  To the contrary, after the war, these wealthy patricians found that they were falling deeper and deeper in debt, and thus began to engage in financial speculation in order to supplement income.

Another major impediment to the success of this system was the fact that other powerful groups, such as the mercantile interests and tradesmen, soon demanded their own representation in the republic.  This was coupled by the tendency of lower economic classes to develop a desire for material goods and luxuries.  This acquisitiveness in the population ran counter to the idea of the frugal, hard working and virtuous citizen championed by the supporters of Classical Republicanism

Like most and perhaps all revolutions, the American Revolution far outdistanced and eventually buried the intentions and goals of the original revolutionaries.  Though not a point made by Wood, I find it ironic that when describing discredited political or economic systems, such as communism, modern day commentators and historians use terms like ‘the dustbin of history” and often express bemusement that anyone ever espoused such ideologies.  It turns out that many of America’s founding icons, including George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, believed in and attempted to establish just as unworkable a system.

To the dismay of many of the cherished founders, the idea of Classical Republicanism gave way to what we call Liberal Democracy.  This new, much more radical system, championed by the anti–Federalists, acknowledged that society was full of competing interests and there really was no group that was truly disinterested. Therefore the best form of government contained legislatures composed of representatives of various groups.  Partisans would coalesce around parties.  The legislators would be engaged in constant push and pull as well as compromise.  The end result of this competitive process would yield balanced governance.  This is the system what the modern democracies more or less still adhere to today.

Wood’s argument that Classical Republicanism was a goal of many of America’s founders that ultimately unraveled and gave way to more radical ideas is a convincing one.  I do however find a flaw in Wood’s presentation.  Often, Radicalism and the American Revolution presents the conflict between the Federalists who supported Classical Republicanism and the Anti–Federalists who opposed it as too monolithic.  The book casts supporters and opponents as being without much nuance.  My own understanding of the views and policies of America’s founders includes all sorts of variations and contradictions on this matter.  For instance, Jefferson epitomized and led the anti–Federalists, yet he championed the agrarian, landed estate holders who were supposed to lead the Classical Republican society.  Hamilton expressed enormous distrust of the masses and mob rule, yet he advocated for the emerging mercantile class that Classical Republicans would exclude from governance.  Washington, the embodiment of a patrician republican, was extremely pragmatic and never really believed that any group was above partisanship and thus truly disinterested.

Though in my opinion he pushes his point and portrays it a little too simplistically, Wood is on to something when he describes this antiquated political theory and how it quickly gave way to more revolutionary ideas.  He presents a thoroughly researched, smart and thought provoking study and analysis of this issue.

Wood’s book is full of interesting ideas for those who are inclined to delve deeply into these subjects.  The examination of the idea and history of Classical Republicanism in American is only one of many avenues that he strides here.  As someone very interested in the history and ideology of this era, I enjoyed this book immensely. This work is however, in the language of modern slang, wonky.  I would only recommend Radicalism and the American Revolution to those who are indeed very interested.

Reading Gordon Wood

I have a persistent fear that someday I may encounter a pack of smug and conceited history graduate students in a bar and find myself unprepared. Since I need to be ready for this contingency I am reading Gordon Wood’s Radicalism and the American Revolution. Commentary will follow in a few weeks.