"The Radicalism of the American Revolution" 3

[stoutfellow]

This is the third and final entry on Gordon Wood's book.

If one accepts Wood's thesis, the revolutionary generation envisioned a new order of society. The republican ideal involved a society which was still hierarchical, but in which the ruling class was selected not on the basis of birth but on merit. They were expected to be wealthy enough not to have to engage in business; because of this, they could function as disinterested umpires.

This vision was quickly shattered, in favor of a newer, more egalitarian society. Representatives of the rising classes challenged the claim of the "aristocracy of merit" to be disinterested; so many of them were, for example, land speculators that they could not help but be pulled to one side or the other. This sort of challenge was not particularly new, but it was followed by something more radical: the assertion that legislators and other officials did not need to be disinterested - that, on the contrary, the interests of the citizenry deserved representation in the legislature and elsewhere in political life.

This had numerous consequences. The apparatus of government began to be bureaucratized; if the officials were not expected to be disinterested, they must be bound by regulations, forced to act as if they were. Thus, the offices being stripped of their traditional discretion, they could be filled by ordinary people. Again, the judiciary began to rise in importance; there, if nowhere else, disinterest was needed, and the judges stepped into the role of neutral arbiter. Marbury v. Madison began nothing; it was the consequence of a process already in train.

Two major corollaries of the shift to a government of competing interests were the elevation of commerce and the denigration of liberal education. On the one hand, if all interests had a right to participate in government, then, in some sense, all interests were equal. The cleavage was not between white-collar and blue-collar work, but between the working and leisured classes, to the denigration of the latter. Work became the proper occupation of an upright man; the ages-old respect for the leisured gentleman crashed down. On the other hand, liberal education, which was the hallmark of the aristocratic classes (whether of blood or of merit), lost its cachet; men of business sneered at the ivory-tower set, perhaps for the first time.

In the new democratic milieu, the concerns of the general public began to assume greater and greater influence in society. For example, some of the Founders had foreseen a gradual decay of the role of religion in society, as superstition gave way to enlightened deism; the evangelical surge of the Second Great Awakening caught them by surprise, and horrified some of them. Again, the traditional beneficient role of the aristocrats had to fall to the population at large, and the American love affair with associations - educational foundations, lay evangelical groups, benevolent societies - began.

As I said when I began this review of Wood's book, I'm not really in a position to evaluate his claims. However, he does present a coherent story, it seems to me, and one consistent with what I do know about American society, then and now. It provides a plausible backdrop for, e.g., the contrast between a republican Washington and a democratic Jackson. It makes sense to me; more than that, I can't say.


So, oilhistorian, any comments?

Comments

Pretty good summary

[oilhistorian.livejournal.com]

I know many a grad student who would have liked your overview for a readings class. You've pretty much got Wood. If it's piqued your curiosity, you might want to pick up his Creation of the American Republic which carries the theme through to the Constitution. For the opposing view, there's always Joyce Appleby's stuff -- or Charles Beard's. And for something completely different but nevertheless fascinating, may I suggest Drew McCoy's Elusive Republic. IF you want to get a new look at the Foundrs, McCoy is invaluable.