The Radical Possibilities of an American Revolution by Gordon S. Wood and the Radical Revolution from the “Bottom-up” by Gary B. Nash generally debated how the American Revolution portrayed “radicalism” in the sense of how the American colonies and its protesters wanted to accommodate their own government. The most essential legacy of the Revolution, according to Wood, was the principle that everyone is equal, regardless of social or economic standing. Among the numerous radical ideals that gained traction during and after the American Revolution were individual liberty and the rule of law. Regardless of their flaws, egalitarian principles spawned a reforming mindset. Advocacy, community organizing, and direct action are all components of radical social work’s strategy for bringing down oppressive systems. Individuals can achieve social transformation and self-advocacy by engaging in radical social work. Political economists invented the term “radicalism” to define their “left-wing” approach to their profession.
Despite the fact that the country’s history has been consistently conservative, the American Revolution, according to Wood, was an exceedingly socially radical event. Rather than altering society in the traditional sense, it altered how people perceived their interpersonal relationships. The founders had not intended for this to happen, as it turned out. The founders did not intend for it to happen in this manner. It was a runaway democracy, with broomsticks instead of brooms, and the founders were not pleased. Some people find Wood’s photograph contentious because it focuses too much on white guys (slavery is barely touched upon, despite an entire third of the book titled “Equality”). According to Wood, one of the revolution’s most important legacies is that everyone is equal, regardless of social or economic standing or riches (which lay the basis for the rise of contractual relationships rather than personal, patronage ones). Every day, the people of the United States found that in the real world, no one was better than the other. According to Wood, pre-Revolutionary society was more conventional, stratified, and monarchical than previously assumed. Individuals were hurt, and society was divided along class lines, as a result of the reliance on face-to-face contact. Another strategy, described as “republicanizing monarchy,” allowed enlightened rulers to retain power while softening the system’s severe hierarchical elements (like Thomas Jefferson). This trend was aided in the second half of the 18th century by an increase in population and the opening up of new territory to the west. Many social interactions, such as those between parents and their children and creditors and their debtors, became infused as a result of this republican spirit.
The thesis of this book is that the Revolutionary War’s early utopian vision of a society populated by good-hearted citizens inspired by love and compassion was doomed from the start due to rising apprehension over democratic, egalitarian tendencies released by the war. Many of the founders feared the emergence of a “natural aristocracy” that would be replaced by a “chaotic outbreak of commerce-driven, interest- and faction-ridden politics.” This egalitarian inheritance could not be completely realized in America until the Second Great Awakening and the Jacksonian democracy of the mid-nineteenth century.
Nash’s powerful argument supports the dual revolution idea. He said that the conflict caused “serious societal disruption” in port communities. As a result of the unrest, many people, particularly those from the working class, were attracted into politics. They saw reform as transferring power, demolishing old institutions to make space for new ones, a change away from conservative and elitist thought, and the abolition of slavery and the murderous intents of land-crazed frontiersmen. They also desired for women to have more clout in society. White male elites desired stability because it allowed them to maintain their power in a variety of aspects of society, including politics, economics, religion, sexuality, and others. These were the goals of this radicalism. When it comes to politics, the term “radicalism” has long been used to refer to a number of political groups that aspire to democratize society and “put authority in the people,” as stated in New Jersey’s first articles of government in 1776. The potential of ordinary colonies to take action on their own was overestimated by English backers and established colonial opposition leaders. Toward the close of 1765, an unprecedented year in English colonial history saw shock, perplexity, and disgust from the people on the street. As a result of opposition to English policy, hitherto marginalized political groups have found the courage and strength to speak out. “Everyone feared that General Gage would be the next victim of their rapacity since he had told them that “public Fury was not to be controlled.”
According to Gary, the years between 1766 and 1774 were ones of intense debate and confrontation at every level of society. Over a million well-intentioned people on both sides of the Atlantic were putting their political convictions into words, ensuring that they were backed by the Constitution, and determining which ideological viewpoints made sense in their own communities. This type of critical thinking can occur only in the face of adversity. In the decade following 1765, economic conditions deteriorated for all classes of society, exacerbating the situation. Because politics is intertwined in a larger social and economic context, we can’t separate these problems from political theory. The fact that the community has addressed the necessity for revolution lends credence to the argument.
After the readings I understood that radicalism is the notion that society must change and that these changes can only be achieved by revolution. The term “radical” conjures up thoughts of left-wing politics, yet it can be applied to persons from all political parties. Even if revolutions are not always successful, they are required for societal change. There can be no objective judgment of a revolution’s success; rather, each historical action contributes to the possibility of a worldwide revolution, referred to as “the revolution.” Because my ancestors were kidnapped and cruelly exploited by the American colonies, people and government should be dedicated to the new nation’s ideas of liberty, equality, natural and civil rights, and responsible citizenship. If there is a current or future global or national issue, I would propose reforms that would support the ideals of liberty and equality, natural and civil rights, and responsible citizenship, laying the groundwork for current and future generations, contributing to poverty eradication, sustainable livelihoods, and employment, and providing food security for coastal communities and the global population.
Work Cited
Wood, Gordon S. “Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution.” Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 66 (1990): 13.
Wood, Gordon S. “Rhetoric and reality in the American Revolution.” The William and Mary Quarterly: A Magazine of Early American History (1966): 4-32.
Nash, Gary B. “William Penn’s Legacy: Politics and Social Structure in Provincial Pennsylvania, 1726-1755.” (1979): 116-118.
Lynd, Staughton, and David Waldstreicher. “Reflections on Economic Interpretation, Slavery, the People Out of Doors, and Top Down versus Bottom Up.” The William and Mary Quarterly 68.4 (2011): 649-656.
write