Kerber and Wood

After my pre-reading of Kerber's book, I am curious if she would take issue with Gordon Wood's argument in "The Radicalism of the American Revolution." While she may agree that society did essentially shift in nature after the Revolution, her point seems to be that this only went for men. While we are generally aware of the shift in institutions before and after the founding of the nation (as well as the limited scope of the line "all men are created equal"), her declaration that the Founders "did not have the heart or the energy to reconstruct the entire legal system" is an important one. She goes on to state that "even after the Declaration of Independence, the forms and procedures of American law-the understanding of what a contract means, the manner of probating a will, the very concept of phenomena like juries or sheriffs-all had their bases in English practice." Her argument must be that the Founders were either too tired, too lazy, or just didn't think they needed to fix something that worked for them. The fact that the system of laws they changed would not only affect less than half the population but keep women in the same system of bondage and obligation that they had in England is startling. At the very least it raises the question of just how radical the revolution was.