Précis and Source Analysis of an intro to The Radicalism of the American Revolution

By Benji Pacheco

November 14, 2008

HA1
Mr. Drouin
 Gordon S. Wood in The Radicalism of the American Revolution states that the

radicalism of the American Revolution is not found in the amount of heads lost, as in

previous and following revolutions, but rather in the amount of radicalism of the social

change that occurred because of it. Clearly, Wood speaks of the American Revolution; a

time where Britain’s colonies had liberty, but not enough. The disaffected colonists

matured to the point where they did not need a parent government and this resulted in a

movement of independence; an epoch of time in which one event would shape a future

society, a society known as the largest superpower, the superpower of the United States

of America. The U.S.A. in present day shines a major importance on its “…insignificant

and puny origins…” (Wood 3) by its dazzling display of democracy and liberty; only

because the American Revolution was radical, argues Wood. Wood’s work demonstrates

more value than limitations, picking up pieces that he might have dropped in constructing

his arguments in a very neat and direct way.

Wood argues that the American Revolution, even though it was unique, was still

as revolutionary as the rest because it’s radical social change. It was unique in the fact

that “The American revolutionary leaders [did] not fit our conventional image of

revolutionaries-angry, passionate, reckless, maybe even bloodthirsty for the sake of the

cause.” (Wood 2). The American Revolution was also unique in the fact that its

radicalism should not be accounted for “by the degree of social misery of economic

deprivation suffered, or by the number of people killed or manor houses burned” (Wood

3) but that it redefines radicalism by its success. Both of these examples show the

uniqueness of the revolution, but lead to another point, the Revolution’s success despite

its difference from the conservative viewpoint of a revolution. The giant success of the
American Revolution shows it’s prestige as the “most radical and most far-reaching event

in American history.”(Wood 4) And Wood argues how the American Revolution has to

be radical when, “…Americans had become, almost over-night, the most liberal, the most

democratic, the most commercially minded, and the most modern people in the

world.”(Wood 4). The results of the American Revolution, even though some may argue

they were “inevitable” (Wood 4), it is even so still a direct result of it radicalism. Political

reform and change in American culture succeeding the Revolution are also examples of

the validity exhibited. Wood states that the reason for such a political reform was that all

social problems, based on the assumptions of the founders, were a direct result of the

government, thus committing them to reform politically. In this way they changed

society(Wood 3). The creation of this new society is the edifice of the radicalism of the

Revolution, thus the political reform and the Revolution symbiotically exist, patting each

other on the back. Finally, the culture change in the newly formed American society was

due to the radicalism of the Revolution, which “[made] over their art, architecture, and

iconography-but even altered their understanding of history, knowledge, and truth” The

Revolution affected the way people thought, how they expressed life, how they viewed it,

and how they studied it. Wood uses this to show the radicalism; for what revolution not

radical, is able to do this?

Wood’s strong arguments have insignificant limitations if any. One of his values

would be that he not only builds up an argument but sometimes even further protects it by

calling out one or two of its strongest limitations and explaining why those limitations

have nothing against his argument. This is seen in clear example at least two or three

times. This helps his argument by attempting to clear any doubts of it and to provide a
counter to certain skepticism. A second value that Wood has is of his modern view of the

Revolution. Wood is able to take a step back and look at the Revolution as a whole,

eliminating bias that might have been influenced by the times. And things of the

Revolution undiscovered that would be in aide to his arguments, would also be in more

generous supply later on. And yet another value of Gordon’s work is his use of concise

description to explain certain concepts, leading to an overall understanding that provides

substance for his major points. Without these understandings, his arguments would in no

doubt be weaker and limitations would include not having a sufficient amount of

information for his arguments.

Wood did indeed have limitations though, for no writing is perfect. One of his

limitations is that he states from the beginning, in the intro itself, that he would leave

information out; information that one might find useful for more closely understanding

the American Revolution and the things that took away or added to its radicalism.

Secondly, Wood, even though he is able to take a look at the whole picture, is not able to

truly see the occurrence of the Revolution. One might say that this wouldn’t matter, but

even the extent of research that Wood has done can not dismiss the theory that a first-

hand experience by Wood , that is assuming he keep his unbiased attitude, could not have

shown a little more strength in his argument. And lastly, Wood states some of his

weaknesses within his arguments. Are his arguments not strong enough to sustain

themselves that he would not have to include them in the arguments itself? This

limitation provides maybe a basis against his arguments or perhaps includes a weakness

in his argument that previously wouldn’t have been questioned because of it’s strength.
 In the end, Wood’s intro to The Radicalism of the American Revolution shows

strong arguments backed by a helpful construction of those arguments, as well as his

seemingly unbiased attitude, and his broad, directed to the point, persuasive, writing

techniques. His limitations include his absence during the American Revolution, the

weaknesses within his strong arguments, and his exclusion of information, made on the

limited extent of information that he is going to cover in his proceeding coverage of the

validity of the American Revolution.