Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787

Gordon S. Wood is one of the deans of the so-called "intellectual historians" of the Revolutionary era. I just finished reading this book for the third time in the last 15 years, and I am struck by the sweeping nature of it. Wood's thesis is essentially that Americans' thinking about government and politics underwent a remarkable change in the 11 years between the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the framing of the Constitution. In short, through a series of piecemeal changes during this brief period, Americans largely put together a new mode of political thinking. The key to Wood's argument seems to be his discussion of the changes that occurred in the locus of sovereignty, and the separation of political from social authority. "The people" play the key role here. They went from traditionally being "embodied" in one branch of the gov't (the House of Commons in England, for example), to being the source of all governmental authority. This change brought with it changes in the understanding of representation and of separation of powers, and made possible Americans' unique concept of federalism, and the development of an "American science of politics". Wood uses a dazzling array of sources to support his arguments, and in doing so, shows how many hands and brains were involved in this work. The book is long and the general reader may find it a bit difficult, but anyone interested in the development of American political thought cannot neglect it.

I agree with the observations of all of your other reviewers, though I read this book in graduate school and didn't have trouble staying awake. I think R. Albin of Michigan comes closest to the gist of Wood's central thesis, but I would like to elaborate. The Founding Fathers were steeped in 18th century hierarchical society and resented the inherited privilege of Europe's aristocracy because they believed themselves to be the equal of the gentlemen who ruled England. A hallmark of such a society was a requirement that the elite assume the reins of government and exercise power for the benefit of everyone in society. They were required to act "Virtuously" in 18th century parlance. They did not really intend to change this hierarchy with the Revolution and they fully expected that the common men they mobilized as their ground forces would govern the country virtuously. The common man certainly being capable of governing his own affairs, Adams, Madison and the others found that the rustics who controlled the state legislatures during the Revolution and after had no inclination to govern for the larger society. They pursued their own interests and gave little thought to the greater issues at hand, such as the need for organizing a national government and integrating the economy. Because of that sour experience with "direct" democracy, the Founders created a constitution, based on what they saw as the structure of "checks and balances" implicit in the English constitution, that they hoped would restrain the common man and his lack of virtue. Wood's book is the history of their transition through, and adaptation of, highly sophisticated political theories to arrive at that result. Because of their superior understanding of politics and how to control the forces they unleashed, the US passed through its revolutionary era without the full-blown civil war that plagued both the French and Russian Revolutions.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It helped me gain a deeper and more accurate understanding of the principles embodied in the U.S. constitution, the nature of American politics, and the structure of American government, both state and federal, as well as the relationship between the federal government and the states. It's a must-read for any serious student of American history, government, and politics.

Gordon Wood's celebrated book is the story of the way people thought about themselves and the revolution they had made. It explains in great detail the initial failures of majoritarian democracy and the development of constitutionalism. A glance at the footnotes reveals the genuine source of this book's authority: Professor Wood has drawn his narrative and his conclusions from original sources--newspaper articles, letters, and diaries of the period. The only complaint I have is the glaring omission of any mention of slavery. That word doesn't appear in the index or anywhere else in this book. This is all the more remarkable in light of our growing awareness of just how deeply the Founders struggled with this issue. Nevertheless, this is the single most important book on the period. If you want to know about American Democracy and its intellectual origins, this is the book to read.