Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different

Arrived on time as described

I got very involved in the descriptions and introductions of each figure who shaped this great nation. At times the writing was hard to follow unless I concentrated, but the author always brought my attention back to the reading with facts not commonly know to the average revolutionary fan.

I read Dr. Wood's work as a graduate student in the 1970's and my daughter had him as a professor at Brown University several years ago. Consequently, I have an elevated sense of respect for the man. Dr. Wood has an extraordinary understanding for the Revolutionary Period. This book is for anyone who wants to peek into the heads of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Paine and Burr. I highly recommend this book.

Wood has provided several "character studies" of key figures during the American Revolution. Serious history buffs may be surprised by the seemingly glancing descriptions and mentionings of historical events, without any real description. We are provided with references to Burr's dealings in the west, for example, as well as his trial for treason. No serious description is provided, however. This, it seems, was simply not the aim of the work. The title tells us the goal of the work, to describe some of the personalities and backgrounds of revolutionary leaders who have been mythologized in the popular mind. In a time period when people are wondering what the founders would have thought of current events, however, be warned. As I title my review, be careful what you ask for. Our revolutionary founders did not in many cases (if not generally) truly trust in democracy, and were more elitist and sometimes even hypocritical than our treasured conceptions would allow us to admit. Such reality must be embraced, however, so that we do not harken back to a golden age that never truly existed. The founders also should have been careful what they asked for. The hierarchy between gentry and commoners was also destroyed, in ways the founders often never intended. Hamilton gets a more kind treatment than is often the case currently (for example in Ferling's book on the election of 1800). While Hamilton is not given a pass, however, it is always interesting to note what is emphasized and what is given a more cursory treatment in the long careers of these prolific writers and leaders.

You could read several books on the Founding Fathers and, with the possible exception of "Founding Brothers," you wouldn't gain the same insight into their respective philosophies and their place in the intellectual debate of the day. Simply put, Gordon Wood has turned out another outstanding book. In this instance, he turns his pen and analytical mind to Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Paine, and Burr. All chapters are extremely enlightening but I found the ones on Madison and Paine the most interesting because they have been less well covered by other authors over the years. The pacing is good but not breezy -- you have to think about what you read. The casual reader will enjoy this book but it's really for those who have a solid understanding of the Revolutionary era and want to move beyond pure history to what, in theater parlance, would be called "character motivation."

For much of our history, the leaders of the American Revolution and the framers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution enjoyed iconic, mythic status. But they have also been subjected to criticism and debunking, based on their alleged elitism, racism, and sexism in our increasingly cynical, skeptical age. In his recent collection of essays, "Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different" (2006), Gordon Wood offers thoughtful meditations on the Founders. Gordon Wood is Professor of History at Brown University. He is deservedly esteemed for his studies of the Revolutionary era. In his book, Wood offers succinct discussions of the Founders, their backgrounds, what they did, and, most importantly, what they thought. He sets the Founders within their time but shows, paradoxically, how the success of the Founders made their achievements and characters impossible to replicate in subsequent generations. Wood's book consists of individual essays on eight founders, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Paine, and Burr. His Introduction and concluding Epilogue attempt to bring coherence to the story. For Wood, what sets the Founders apart from subsequent leaders was their ability to combine high intellectual achievement in politics with the life of affairs and leadership. In much of the subsequent history of the United States, intellectuals and thinkers have been separated from active political life and, in fact, alienated from it. (Thus, the cynicism that I mentioned at the outset of this review.) He finds that the Founders were able to combine the world of intellect with that of practical politics through a devotion to Enlightenment and aristocratic ideals, including ideals regarding the role of an educated gentleman in society, and ideals of civil behavior and good manners, in a broad sense. The Founders were in part individuals who had risen by their own efforts, in most cases through education and study. They used their success to devote themselves to the good of the country and to expand the scope of public participation. This expansion of the scope of citizen participation in the government lead to democracy and egalitarianism and destroyed the conditions which had made the achivement of the Founders itself possible. Of the essays in the book, the first, "On the Greatness of George Washington" is a reminder of why this reserved, austure figure deserves to be remembered as the greatest of Presidents and as the greatest member of an outstanding generation. The essays on John Adams and James Madison have the highest degree of intellectual content. In the Adams essay, Woods discusses Adams' political philosophy and shows how it was in part prescient and profound and in part based upon a misunderstanding of American constitutionalism. In the essay on Madison, Woods argues that there was a unity of thought througout his career, rather than a switch from Federalism to states rights and democracy, as

Gordon Wood has distilled a large body of knowledge into cogent chapters on the founding fathers, bookended by essays that put their legacy into perspective. What he tries to do is peel away the layers of mythmaking and revisionist history that have taken place over the last two centuries and get to the heart of what made these "revolutionary characters" tick. What he reveals is that it was their strong sense of public character and duty that separated them from not only the mainstream of their time but the mainstream thought that prevails today. Wood argues that you cannot separate the Founding Fathers from their era, they lived under a very different set of circumstances, and responded to these circumstances in their own unique ways. Since so much of their writings and journals have survived down through the ages,it makes these early statesmen prime subjects for psycho-analysis, but what Wood tries to do is take the position of an observer, looking into their conduct as one would in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. While a ranking of their conduct can more or less be inferred by the order of the chapters and the way Wood assesses their individual characters, the author stresses the pivotal roles each had in shaping the United States. Washington is paramount in the way he was able to balance all these competing forces in his presidential administration. He was a leader, if not necessarily a "decider," capable of weighing the opinions of his administration and reaching what he regarded as a just and due course for the nation. He may have lacked the intellectual abilities of Jefferson and Hamilton, or the judicial acumen of Adams, but he didn't seem to second guess his decisions, sticking by them and accepting the consequences like the gentleman he saw himself as. While this may have lent him a stiff air he was so respected in his day that the deification of his role in the American Revolution had already begun by the time of the Constitutional assemblies. If he was reluctant to assume the role of President, Wood argues it was because he did not wish to become king, which was the way many leading figures were projecting him at the time. Franklin and Adams were less concerned with how they were viewed by others, but they too cultivated public characters that served them well throughout the revolution. Both saw politics as a form of theatre, and as such perception was as important as the reality of their actions. Franklin seemed to be the more optimistic of the two, whereas Adams was deeply worried about the balance of government, something which Wood says gave Adams no rest throughout his lifetime. This could also be said of James Madison, which Wood devotes an excellent chapter to, showing how he was misinterpreted both in his time by his fellow statesmen, and later by historians. It is largely viewed that Madison underwent a major change of heart in the 1790's from that of an ardent Federalist to an anti-Federalist over t