An Analysis of the Book The Radicalism of the American Revolution by Role Gordon S. Wood

In order for a Pulitzer Prize to be granted to an individual, an unbelievable and almost impossible event must occur. For some, that task takes a few years, for others, a lifetime, sometimes without success. However, some people decide not to discover a new formula, vaccine, or cure for a disease, but to create and write a book, either out of their own and personal ideas, or existing facts. Gordon S. Wood, author of the honorary book The Radicalism of the American Revolution, centered his creation on an already existing event, the American Revolution.

In his famous book, which won the Pulitzer Prize for History in 1993, Wood interprets the Revolution's affect on the American colonies, leading to 1776. He uses the "cutting board" effect on the Revolution, by using the war as the main viewpoint and "cutting it down" into three smaller and more precise categories; monarchy. republicanism, and democracy. Why did Wood write this historical text? Was he vying for a place to speak his personal thoughts or was he trying to prove a valid and historical point? Combining the information of the three categories, along with other historical evidence, Wood proves that the American Revolution changed America in a way that affects the country presently and whether or not some particular events were necessary for America's establishment.

Wood's text opens by explaining the status of the 17th Century colonial society as being "...A thousand different anomalies and inconsistencies...," (Wood, 11). An anomaly is any thing, person, or event that makes a normal situation unordinary or extravagant. Since its conception in the late 1700's, the thirteen American colonies were under the rule of a monarchial form. At that particular time, the colonies were a "royal" mess. Everyone had their own ideas, and everyone expressed their own views and opinions. However, the colonies were under rule of the King and Queen of England, or monarchy. The colonies, after the initial move to the New World, lived under this monarchy for a period of time, without any significant complaints to England. Wood acknowledges this action, agrees that the colonists were developing their home after the Kingdom because it was the only logical way at the time.

Order custom essay An Analysis of the Book The Radicalism of the American Revolution by Role Gordon S. Wood with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

New England settlers and their families, as well as any colony with a great population, were treated the worst of all. These settlers were treated based on dependence to their male leaders, whose most common occupation was one of a farmer. Although thought to be prevalent, the representation of the colonies in Parliament was nonexistent. No representation in the colonies meant that they were at the bottom of the pole, getting the short end of everything, and having practically zero say in taxation, hence the phrase "Taxation without Representation." Riots were the reaction of this discovery, but what was to be expected? The rioting and mobbing continued, causing deaths of many colonists, and more problems than necessary, and it was a learning lesson for everyone. Monarchial ruling started the American colonies, and even though it created chaos, it was necessary for the establishment; American grew stronger and learned to compromise with each other to win the respect and the prize of freedom. However, the Revolutionary War was bom.

A major transition occurred in the American colonies after the era of England's monarchial rule. The Revolutionary War gained America the necessary freedom, enough to establish the movement from straight monarchy to a "Republicanization of Monarchy." In Wood's book, republicanism is viewed from many ancient civilizations, such as Egyptian, Roman, and Greek (Republicanism, Wood, 100). Classical republicanism is revived and refurbished from the Italian Renaissance Period (Wood, 101). This specific organizational and influential era is what the American colonies used as a model for their initial government. However, not everyone agreed with this system. Most of the high class men, such as Englishmen, agreed with this vast, new idea for a judicial system. However, the minority (middle and low class) were against the entire change.

They ideally wanted to model their colony and the colony government, as well as religious beliefs, from those of the English, or any successful settlement of the past. General George Washington, who at the time had been elected the 1st United States President, along with other political heads, such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Harrison, differed in their opinion (Wood, 208). At the present time, the biggest issue involving the colonies was of monetary standards. In the beginning stages, the United States was very poor, having given their valued money to support the men fighting in the Revolutionary War. But this minor setback did not stop the development process. "..For the Revolution had set loose forces in American society that few realized existed, and before long republicanism itself was struggling to survive..." (Wood, 225). This quote in Radicalism of the American Revolution simply states that the colonies had started to establish a new life, separate from England, but were struggling in the areas of occupational, judicial, and even survival. The newborn American republic was fighting to stand proud and successful with the Freedom they had newly won, but was failing.

In Democracy, the third point of Wood's explanation of the United States after the Revolutionary War, equality is a main topic. Revolutionaries, who were in favor of the American Revolution, "...Hoped to destroy the bonds holding together the older monarchical society." (Democracy, Wood, 229). Throughout the beginning stages of the United States, kinship (to fellow inhabitants), patriarchy (one main leader), and patronage (of freedom, to country) were very important aspects of creating the utopian society. However, a utopia is not possible, at least not in the present day and age, nor was it in the 1800's.

Problems occurred with everything, from the title of a Caucasian gentleman, to the home of a poor African slave. Also, new political parties were formed and the Constitution was born. The Republican Party, the Democratic Party and the Whig Party were the main political standings of the 1800's. The Constitution was necessary to state the laws and the rights of the citizens of the United States. There were pros and cons to this document, and Federalists and Anti-Federalists were produced. Land and property possession caused disruption in the flow of society, and caused new laws to be passed and arrests to be made. All of the past events, from the beginning to the end of the 17th Century, strengthened the new republic and created an unbreakable bond of unity. Without that bond, the nation would be a chaotic mess in the present day and age.

Michael Zuckerman, a member of the Department of History at Philadelphia's University of Pennsylvania, wrote a criticism concerning Wood's Radicalism. In his piece of literature, Zuckerman proposes two distinctive and alluring points about Wood's historical text, and makes perfect sense. The first of the two criticisms is that Wood does not know what he is talking about, or in Zuckerman's words, "Perhaps it does not really proffer the synthesis it purports." (William and Mary Quarterly, Zuckerman 694). Described as odd and boring, Wood's analysis of the American Revolution has no real proof backing historical statements, as well as enticing readers to acknowledge the war as he did.

Wood was simply stating an opinion, a strong one at that, and Zuckerman feels the complexity and scholastic feel of the text is not necessary, for the book is not valid. The second of Zuckerman's criticisms proposes that Wood believes England had no influence whatsoever in the establishment and lives of the colonists. Zuckerman strongly thinks that England was very important in the colonies, whereas Wood was not so dependent on the idea. However, both agree that the colonies were not rich enough to live to England's superior standards of society. Through all of the words Wood wrote in his book, Zuckerman found a flaw in the meaning, or even the purpose of their existence. Zuckerman felt that the way Wood presented his argument was juvenile, untrue to the standard taught timeline of the Revolutionary War, and most of all, unnecessary (Zuckerman, 693-702).

The American Revolution has contorted the present society in invisible and unclear ways. All good establishments start out shaky and rough, as did the beginnings of the United States. However, the Revolution caused America to be distant for a period of time, but eventually grew closer and closer together. Yes, there were "radicals" produced from the war, but not everything can be perfect. The United States, in the long run, was destined to develop from hardships and warfare. At the time, war was the only way. Thousands of lives were lost in the process, but without a little bit of dispute and quiet mouths, our country today would be run by Parliament, and tea would still be our largest product.

The "radicals", at the given times, felt what they did and how they reacted to certain struggles and disputes was the only and perfect solution to the problem at hand. I believe Zuckerman is the stronger man in this analysis of how the American Revolution changed America. One of the main reasons why I agree with Zuckerman is that I do not think people were "radical" in the 1800's, I think they were timid to speak for their own selves and make the country the way they wanted it, so they succumbed to the war. The validity of Wood's analysis and opinion of the war is good, but Zuckerman's analysis and voice is stronger and more agreed upon in American eyes.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer