Gordon Wood's The Radicalism Of The American Revolution

In The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1991), Gordon S. Wood argues there were three distinct periods of social ideology in early American society, monarchy, republicanism, and democracy. While each era progressed chronologically, they were in no way distinct, with considerable ideological overlap occurring between them. The monarchy, which dominated American culture during the colonial period, was a series of hierarchical relationships denoted by various levels of dependency through personal ties. Republicanism, beginning in the 1740s, slowly chipped away at the fundamental principles of monarchical society. Revolutionary leaders highlighted the importance of classical virtues as changes in social demographics further disintegrated the traditional elements holding society together. The era of democracy, which Wood believes began after the defeat of the British, found its beginnings in the rhetoric of pre-revolutionary equality. This is the age when the revolutionary leader’s lofty ambitions of disinterested classical republicanism, was destroyed by the common man’s insistence on self-interested participation and a pursuit of personal gains.
To Wood, the major catalyst for this change was the American Revolution, which he describes as “one of the greatest revolutions the world has known,
a momentous upheaval that not only fundamentally altered the character of American society but decisively affected the course of subsequent history.” (Wood, 5) He argues against progressive and neo-progressive historians who depict the American Revolution as a social upheaval by underprivileged groups against an aristocratic elite, as well as those scholars who contend the rebellion was completely void of any social factors. While the Revolution did not begin the transformation away from monarchy, nor did it immediately usher in the era of democracy, it did contribute to the process in two profound ways. First, it was a major turning point. Prior to the war with Britain, colonists lived in a monarchical, traditional society with increasing elements of republican ideology. Once the revolution began, colonists lived in a republican society with many lingering characteristics of traditional culture.
Second, and most importantly, the language the revolutionary republican leaders used to emphasize equality during the war was wholeheartedly adopted by a large segment of the adult white male population at its conclusion. Men who before the war were seen as commoners with no role or voice in government now demanded active participation in it. This commoner involvement in the political process, associated with self-interest and their desire for personal gain, disintegrated any hopes of establishing a government founded on classical virtues of the common good. By the 1820s, through this evolutionary process, “Americans had become, almost overnight, the most liberal, the most democratic, the most commercially minded, and the most modern people in the world.” (Wood, 6-7)
Wood describes colonial society prior to the American Revolution as quintessentially traditional. Little to no separation existed between public and private spheres, or between social and state functions. Colonists drew their authority and secured their rights through personal relationships, instead of independent governmental institutions. All aspects of colonial life were inter-connected. Colonists considered themselves traditional, British, and subjects of the king. Wood contends colonial society was traditionally in several ways. Hierarchical status and relationships, particularly the division of gentlemen and commoners, were common and heavily influenced by patronage.
Alongside the ideology of hierarchy was the significance of kinships in colonial society. The family was the central unit in business and politics, with traditional elements filtering into inheritance practices and landownership, and even into the institution of slavery. Since relationships tended to be personal, they were also paternalistic. This patriarchy, as practiced in the colonies, was dominated by the head of the household. No better example of traditional society existed than in the political realm. Here the private and public spheres were most effectively blurred, and the levels of hierarchy most easily visible. As Wood’s writes, “Translating the personal, social, and economic power of the gentry into political authority was essentially what eighteenth-century politics was about. The process was self-intensifying: social power created political authority, which in turn created more social influence.” (Wood, 88)
The republicanism which began to infiltrate traditional society beginning in the 1740s completely transformed that culture by the 1780s. This new ideology, spread through the speeches and writings of revolutionary leaders, challenged every aspect of traditional colonial life. It redefined the very notions of individual and state, and forever changed how the two interacted. Wood argues that while classical republicanism, practiced through the readings of ancient Roman writers such as Cato and Cicero, were important in promoting radical ideas of participatory government, there were demographic and economic changes which were equally as important to the colonies development. Included in these, was a massive population increase with less reservation towards mobility than previous generations during the middle decades of the eighteenth century.
Equally as important to the origins of social development in the second half of the eighteenth century were the rapid expansion of colonial American economies and the changes in consumer spending. A significant increase in imports and exports and the expansion of inland trade facilitated this economic boom, leading to the increased usage of paper money. The rise of consumer spending, what some historians refer to as a “consumer revolution,” was aided by two factors. The first was a drastic upsurge in borrowing on credit, allowing common people to purchase luxury goods. The second was a breakdown in an already weak social hierarchy. No longer were colonists willing to accept that only the elite in society could own the “finer things.”
Wood contends the American Revolution severely weakened the social hierarchy and patronage systems by removing many prominent loyalists in positions of authority from the colonies. Furthermore, the revolutionaries attacked the very notion of patronage, “any position that came from any source but talent and the will of the people now seemed undeserved and dependent. Patrimonialism, plural officeholding, and patronage of all sorts- practices that had usually been taken for granted in a monarchical society- came under attack.” (Wood, 176) Popular consent replaced monarchical government, and inheritance laws changed to recognize daughters and widows. Concurrently, ideological changes were occurring among revolutionary leaders. In order to maintain social cohesion in absence of traditional royal authority, prominent men began distancing themselves from the classic Roman writings on civic virtue, selecting instead to promote education for the masses and benevolence.
Wood’s third period of social development, democracy, details the utter failure of the revolutionaries ideal vision for American society. Their hope was to replace a civilization dominated by kinship, patriarchy, and patronage, with one of benevolence, and consent. To the revolutionary leader’s dismay, the new American citizens displayed traits which appeared incompatible with republican ideology. They lacked sufficient virtue, refused to give proper deference to authority, and were obsessed with moneymaking and self-interests. In the political realm, new leaders emerged that shared little with the revolutionary generation. They were less liberal, less educated, and tended to promote their constituents interests at the expense of the nation.
Wood argues that adult white males utilized a new definition of equality, which stressed that every man possessed a common moral sense, to dismantle any remaining hierarchy based on superiority. By the early 1800s, idleness, previously a hallmark of gentlemen virtue, came under attack by common men who idolized a strong work ethic. At the same time, classical republican concepts of office-holding such as disinterest and no compensation for service were eliminated from the political system. This new generation of middle class leaders, which dominated society by the 1820s, rebuked the ideology of classical republicanism trumpeted by the leaders of the revolution. They argued that America could not find greatness by looking back to classical civilizations, rather “by creating a prosperous free society belonging to obscure people with their workaday concerns and their pecuniary pursuits of happiness- common people with their common interests in making money and getting ahead.” (Wood, 369)
Gordon Wood’s developmental model has some similarities and many differences to other historian’s work on the topic.
In “Modernization and the Modern Personality in Early America, 1600-1865” (1972), Richard Brown agrees that the American Revolution played a prominent role in America’s long-term social development. The two historians also share a similar description of the British colonies seemingly paradoxical traditional/modern society. Brown views modern elements in widespread political participation and the reduced distribution of wealth, while associating decentralized government, a lack of formal institutions, and an economy based in agriculture as more
traditional.
Despite these similarities, considerable differences in their conclusions exist. First, the two author’s timelines for “modernization” does not coincide. Wood considers the United States “modern” by the early nineteenth century, whereas Brown believes that transition did not occur completely until around 1900. In addition, Brown argues that the American colonies were experiencing a counter-modernization movement in the mid-eighteenth century. A rising population and decreased availability of land was widening the wealth gap and decreasing social mobility. This traditional resurgence was broken by the revolution. This is in direct conflict with Wood’s process, which claims that while still monarchical, the colonies were becoming more modern, with increasing focus on republican ideology. Also, Brown’s main agent of development is land. He contends the availability of large quantities of land results in widespread political participation, and increased wealth.