Although I think the thesis is more clear in Wood's book and historical figures are more "familiar," Morgan's book was "easier" for me to read but more difficult to interpret. I found myself having to stop and think about Wood's book more frequently, but I was able to follow his thought process. I enjoyed the last part of The Radicalism of the American Revolution more than I enjoyed the last part of American Slavery, American Freedom. I thought Morgan's ending was kind of abrupt (very little mention of the founding fathers he mentioned in the Introduction) whereas Wood brought a more solid ending. I'm looking forward to hearing about comparisons in our discussion this week.
Also, it struck me that Wood presumed that most Americans consider the Revolution to be "downright conservative." I never thought of it that way. Did anyone else find that they disagreed with this statement? It was interesting reading a book trying to convince the reader of the Revolution's radicalism when I had assumed it was radical all along. The ways I found the Revolution radical revolved around the notion that a relatively untrained group of men fought one of the strongest military powers in the world and won their freedom, but Wood's argument made me really think about how the Revolution was radical for different reasons. He argues that the Revolution was radical, not just because of the change of government, but the social changes that occurred.
The Radicalism of the American Revolution was a good read and I enjoyed Wood's perspective. Again, I also appreciated the clearer argument!
Andrea,
ReplyDeleteI resonate with the idea that it was conservative. As I see it, the founders saw the leadership of Great Britain as moving away from the ideas that protected the rights of Englishmen (at start of the tensions w/ England, didn't they talk of their rights as Englishmen, not Americans?). They thought they were doing the same thing that patriotic men had done back in the English Civil War (wasn't Oliver the most common name for boys in that generation?) and the Glorious Revolution (hence a connection between the Declaration of Independence and Locke?).
However, they ended up getting something they didn't expect, and that's what Wood is emphasizing.
Could it be that the Revolution was conservative in intent but radical in effect?
I see your point from a historian's perspective...but the average American would probably not make the conservative connection you did. I believe the average reader/learner looks at the Revolution as different from the rest - different types of leaders, meetings, documents, etc. That viewpoint is "radical" to the average Joe. To Wood, the non-conventional image is looked at as conservative. So it seems like a matter of opinion. Wood starts his book by saying: "We as Americans like to think of our revolution as not being radical..." That generalization, I believe, is inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the English Civil War is something to consider when discussing/studying the American Revolution, comparing the two in this instance doesn't seem fitting. Although some men may have thought they were doing the same thing patriotic men had done in the mid 17th century, the American Revolution was a different time and more importantly, a different place.
I agree with you that the Revolution was radical in effect. I enjoyed reading Wood's arguments favoring the impacts of this conflict.
Kevin / Andrea,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Wood's argument that many Americans believe that the Revolution was a "conservative" event. However, I think this has to do with the specific wording. Many students, especially during their primary education, are taught to assign negative connotations to the word "radical." Therefore, describing the Revolution as "radical" could be extremely challenging for many young students to accept.
In addition, I think that Wood presents a significantly more holisitic argument than most Americans have been exposed to. By arguing that the entire society changed, the Revolution becomes a more radical change than if it were to have been limited to strictly government.
Thoughts?
Mark
Mark
Hey Everybody,
ReplyDeleteAnother thought that I had about the book was where wsa the British perspective? Wood talks in great length about how radical these changes were. However, it seems as though the British leaders in Parliament or the King would be discussing the Revolution and the changes taking place. I think that including the British voice would have done a great deal to advance Wood's argument.
I see what you're saying Mark. But wasn't he trying to focus on the changes of American society?
DeleteThere is a definite thread of historical scholarship that assigns the American Revolution as merely being the replacement of a far-off power with a local one. Wood seeks to push back against this.
ReplyDeleteThe American Revolution is viewed as conservative by lots of Americans even today. People identify it as a tax revolt for freedom from government - not a bottom up levelling movement like the French, Russian, or Haitian revolutions. There is also the optics. The leaders of the American Revolution come off as sober and conservative when compared to someone like Robespierre.
When I first began reading the book, I had a picture of the Revolution in my head as being very bloody with a lot of struggle, however, I didn't think to label that as radical, I just thought that was standard for a Revolution. My biggest issue was saying that it was the most radical thing in US history. I just can't agree with that. Is it radical because it was for independence and we've never had to fight something like that again? Or was it radical because society changed so much? Still up in the air on that one...But like you said, good clear argument & an enjoyable read.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Wood was referring to the radical change in the way America went from a colony to an independent nation destined to be the greatest power in the world? It all started with the revolution, no matter how skewed the founding fathers ideals became.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"Also, it struck me that Wood presumed that most Americans consider the Revolution to be "downright conservative." I never thought of it that way. Did anyone else find that they disagreed with this statement?"
In response to this question, I think a lot of Americans think there was a weak tie to the monarchy and that the colonies had already practiced a form of republicanism. We tend to see American history as the eventuality of events rather than actors of history changing the course of what might be.