A Samuel Adams Problem?

A Fundamental Error
in the "Key Founders" Argument

For those who debate religion and the founding, one of the central topics of conversation centers around the role that the "key founders" had in establishing the American republic. Usually this conversation focuses on five or six "big guns" of the founding era -- Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, John Adams, and sometimes Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine -- whose contributions to the American Revolution, Constitution, etc. are considered to be of greater value or influence than others. And while it is true that the contributions of some founders were greater than others -- who would be silly enough suggest that someone like John Rutledge was as important to the American Revolution as George Washington -- I often find myself being somewhat uncomfortable with the term "key founders." After all, what constitutes someone becoming a "key" founder? What criteria do we use when selecting individuals for this ultra-exclusive classification? For example, could a woman ever be considered a "key" founder? Did not Abigail Adams play a pivotal role in supporting John through the ups and downs of his political career? And what of the many influential and prominent founders who supported revolution but rejected the Constitution? Has their legacy been tainted in some way for being on the "wrong side" of history?

Of course the answer to these questions are complex to say the least. After all, one could easily argue -- without being sexist mind you -- that women had virtually no role in the founding of America. There were no women present at the Continental Congress/Constitutional Convention, nor were women allowed to vote/run for office in the early years of the infant American nation. In addition, one could also logically conclude that those who supported revolution but rejected the Constitution -- Patrick Henry comes to mind -- are of somewhat lesser importance due to the simple fact that their beliefs were overshadowed by those of the "key" founders. Of course this should not suggest that the contributions of women or those who opposed the Constitution are irrelevant, but it does illustrate the fact that some "key" individuals did play a greater role than others.

With that said, I believe that many historians/students of early America/amateur historians/whatever else you wanna call them, are oftentimes quite discriminatory in their selection of "key" founders. It is almost always the case that these "key" founders are men of elite status who embraced the Revolution, accepted the Constitution, and, for the purposes of our blog, were at least ambiguous in their devotion to the Christian religion. For example, Gordon Wood, who the majority of readers on this blog consider to be the finest historian of early America, only mentions seven founders -- Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, Paine, and Burr -- in his book Revolutionary Characters. And while I am sure that Wood himself recognizes the fact that these seven men were far from alone in their endeavors to create a new nation, the fact remains that many important founders are often omitted from the historical dialogue.

Such is the case with Samuel Adams. Despite the fact that he is regularly referred to as the "Father" of the American Revolution -- historian Joseph Ellis calls him the "Lenin of the American Revolution" -- Samuel Adams is almost always omitted from the "Key Founder" classification. In our modern era, Sam Adams has probably become more of a beer symbol than a revolutionary icon. Even this blog is guilty of omitting Sam Adams from our discussions on early America. In our one year run, which has amassed over 600 posts, Sam Adams has only been mentioned IN ONE POST -- and even that post was quite brief of the topic. So how is it that a man who is often considered the father of the American Revolution, adversary of the Stamp Act, organizer of the Sons of Liberty, and all-around champion of the common man be so blatantly ignored?

In his excellent bio of Samuel Adams, author Mark Puls presents a compelling case that the modern historiography of Sam Adams has given most Americans a very skewed and incomplete understanding of the man who Thomas Jefferson referred to as, "truly the man of the Revolution." and "the patriarch of liberty." He writes:

Despite his many achievements and their lasting impact, his legacy goes largely unheralded in recent years, even during a wave of interest about the Founding generation. While Adams was hailed as the "Father of the American Revolution" in his own time, his role in the birth of a nation has been overshadowed by founders who went on to become U.S. Presidents or by men who rose to prominence during the inaugural federal government. Biographers and historians have assigned more significant places to men who had little influence before the Revolution in shaping the birth of the nation or forging its foundational ideals.

[...]

Since Adams' death in 1803, the assessments of his contributions to American history have undergone several revisions, based in part on the views of the Revolution itself. Nineteenth-century historians such as George Bancroft, in his 1882 exhaustive, six-volume "History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent" saw Adams as the major figure in American movement leading up to the war: "No one had equal influence over the popular mind." James K. Hosmer's 1888 biography, "Samuel Adams" ranked his subject second only to George Washington in importance to the founding of the United States.

[...]

Until the 1920s, historians treated Adams in the same generally positive light accorded the other Founding Fathers. A revision of his record began with Ralph V. Harlow's 1923 "Samuel Adams -- Promoter of the American Revolution", which portrayed Adams as a propagandist and zealot, a view furthered by John C. Miller's 1936 "Samuel Adams: A Pioneer in Propaganda".

In recent years, Samuel Adams has been treated by historians as a propagandist who stoked the passions of the poor and built resentment against the British to further his own career. Scholars such as Russell Kirk dismissed Adams as a "well-born demagogue" in his 1974 "The Roots of American Order."

Here Puls makes his disgust with the current Sam Adams historiography clear. The idea that the "father" of the American Revolution was a rabble-rousing, doomsday propagandist who preyed upon the ignorance and vulnerability of the poor tends to permeate the current historical interpretation of Sam Adams. Even the recent HBO miniseries, John Adams attempts to portray Samuel Adams as being little more than an ultra-passionate, angry, and vindictive leader of the masses:



Puls continues:

But the historical record and an examination of Adams' writings tell a very different story. Adams and the other colonists involved in the civil rights struggle were not an unthinking mob, but a highly reflective people who stated their case with reasoned arguments in pamphlets, letters, petitions, and newspaper articles. In his writings, Adams placed his faith in a logical persuasion, devoid of feckless emotional appeals, in the same manner of modern newspaper columnists. His readers were highly literate, and well versed in the allusions to ancient Latin and Greek writers and examples from antiquity from which he drew analogies. His crusade eventually drew in intellectuals such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, as well as affluent men such as George Washington and John Hancock. Mob violence was common in England during the eighteenth century, but these protests never achieved any specific political goals. It's highly unlikely that the successful colonial resistance in the prewar years as well as the Revolution itself and the creation of an independent nation would have occurred without the involvement of the educated and affluent.

If the founders themselves were allowed to select the "key" contributors to the American cause, Samuel Adams may very well be among them. As historian Joseph Ellis states:"In the midst of the current surge of interest in the founders, the most conspicuous absence is that of Samuel Adams, an absence that most of his peers would have found inexplicable."

Or as his second cousin, John Adams stated, "Without the character of Samuel Adams, the true history of the American Revolution can never be written. For fifty years his pen, his tongue, his activity, were constantly exerted for his country without fee or reward."

Perhaps we could make one more slot for dear Sam in our "Key Founders" category?

"America is a Christian Nation...But so is Hell": Garry Wills on Separation of Church & State

Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian Garry Wills discusses separation of church and state. Excellent video.

Gary Nash on "Conservative-Culture Warriors" and Historical "Revision"

Historian Gary Nash of UCLA is not only one of the most respected historians on early American history, but has also received praise for the fact that his scholarship has breathed new life into America's sense of historical appreciation. In recent years, Nash's work has challenged many of the traditional assumptions surrounding America' founding. Everything from the role of slavery and women to the influence of religion on America's 18th century revolution has been a part of Nash's "assault" on traditional early American historiography.

In his most recent book, The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America, Nash challenges the idea that the American Revolution was merely a conflict between rival elites in Britain and America. Instead, Nash boldly proclaims the revolution as being inspired and led by the masses.

In addition, Nash challenges a number of the beliefs held by Christian Nationalists in regards to America's founding. Nash proclaims America's establishment and success as being the result of enlightened secularist ideology, which caused the American populace to challenge the social, political and religious norms of their day. In so doing, America became not a "Christian" government but a secular institution, which sought to keep religion and government separate from one another.

Naturally, the scholarship of Gary Nash does not sit well with hard-core Christian apologists such as David Barton and others. In response, Christian zealots have sought to label historians like Nash as being "unpatriotic" or as "secular revisionists" that are bent on eliminating any and all remnants of America's "Christian heritage."

Gary Nash was not ignorant of the fact that his work would stir up hostilities. In his introduction, Nash addresses his critics by writing the following:

When historians fix their gaze downward or write a warts-and-all American history, they often offend people who cherish what they remember as a more coherent, worshipful, and supposedly annealing rendition of the past. In the history of the 1990s, many conservative-culture warriors called historians offering new interpretations of the American Revolution – or any other part of American history – “history bandits,” “history pirates,” or, sneeringly, “revisionists” intent on kidnapping history with no respect for a dignified rendition of the past. Yet the explosion of historical knowledge has invigorated history and increased its popularity...

Unsurprisingly, those of the old school do not like to hear the question "whose history?" It is unsettling for them to see the intellectual property of the American Revolution, once firmly in the hands of a smaller and more homogeneous historians' guild, taken out of their safe boxes, put on the table, and redivided. Yet what could be more democratic than to reopen questions about the Revolution's sources, conduct, and results? And what is the lasting value of a "coherent" history if the coherence is obtained by eliminating the jagged edges, where much of the vitality of the people is to be found? How can we expect people to think of the American Revolution as their own when they can see no trace of their forbears in it?

Then Nash puts the smack down on those who favor a "traditional" interpretation of the American Revolution as being exclusively a conflict of the elite:

A history of inclusion has another claim to make. Only a history that gives play to all the constituent parts of society can overcome the defeatist notion that the past was inevitably determined...Honest history can impart a sense of how the lone individual counts, how the possibilities of choice are infinite, how human capacity for both good and evil is ever present, and how dreams of a better society are in the hands of the dispossessed as much as in the possession of the putative brokers of our society's future.

If this is "secular revisionism," or "historical piracy" then count me in!

The Danger of David Barton

In light of some of the recent discussions on religion that this blog has witnessed, I thought you might all engage in a good debate over this topic.

Over the past few years, I have maintained a serious problem with the "history" of David Barton. Barton's blatant bias, combined with his lack of historical integrity shocks me. Don't get me wrong, I believe that there are some GREAT historians out there who embrace evangelical teachings, but Barton's agenda is so transparent that I cannot see how people take him seriously. I realize that my saying this might be construed as insensitive or insulting. By no means am I trying to be this way. In fact, I think it is important for you all to know that I embrace evangelical teachings myself. With that said, however, I cannot believe a word that comes out of David Barton's mouth, when he talks about history. Where is his training? Certainly it is not in history.

Arguably the most ridiculous claims made by Barton come from his book, America's Godly Heritage, where he states that 52 of the 55 signers to the Declaration of Independence were "orthodox" or "evangelical Christians." Are you kidding me??? In a wonderful critique of this ridiculous book, one writer states, "Barton does not cite any authority to support this assertion. Indeed, the weight of scholarly opinion is to the contrary." In another critique of Barton's assertions (done by the Baptist Joint Committee For Religious Liberty) Barton is severely chastised for his lack of historical integrity and for his more-than-ridiculous claims. And here is yet another brilliant rebuttal of Barton's falsehoods, which was written in Church and State Magazine in August of 1996.

As an Evangelical Christian, what aggravates me about the religious right (and Barton in particular) is the fact that SERIOUS scholarly inquiry and discovery are completely rejected in the name of "Christian" values. Facts are often distorted, ignored or even altered simply to "fit" a particular agenda or belief. This sentiment of theological arrogance, which is used to trump sincere intellectual inquiry is one of the main reasons why so many in the mainstream community have a problem with the religious right today. If Barton would cease to publish such rubbish, which is blatantly false and biased, perhaps people would feel differently.

This video is a perfect example of Barton's ridiculous "historical" claims:

Gordon Wood "The Purpose of the Past"

The newest book by the highly acclaimed early American historian, Gordon Wood, has finally hit stores. The Purpose of the Past: Reflections on the Uses of History is a look into how historiography has changed over the years, and how the role of history has become less important in American culture.

The book touches on a few issues that we have discussed on this blog. For example, Wood mentions the sad fact that American students are scoring worse in history exams than they are in math or reading. Wood attributes this decline of historical "literacy" to not only a general apathy towards the topic, but a decreased emphasis in its role in several academic circles.

The Los Angeles Times has given Wood praise for this book, calling it "a breath of fresh air." In addition, the L.A. Times stated the following:

Like a referee blowing a whistle, Wood calls for a timeout, to pause and reflect on the condition of modern historiography. (You might think of Wood as a pendulum, stopping in mid-swing to offer up pearls of modest wisdom.) The core argument he presents is that the incendiary warfare between the popularizers and academics must stop. Whether it's a bestselling Albert Einstein biography published by Simon & Schuster or an esoteric university press case study on the Watts riots using deconstructionist Jacques Derrida and structuralist Michel Foucault as gurus, the historian's mission should be the same: to communicate the past to everyday people. To Wood, an audience is essential if historians are going to influence the consciousness of our times. "We Americans have such a thin and meager sense of history that we cannot get too much of it," he writes. "What we need more than anything is a deeper and fuller sense of the historical process, a sense of where we have come from and how we have become what we are."

Barnes & Noble's website also features a lengthy review of Wood's book, which is worthy of mention here.

As most of you already know, Gordon Wood won the Pulitzer Prize for his book The Radicalism of the American Revolution in 1997. He is considered by some to be the foremost historian of the American Revolution. Here is a link to Gordon Wood's website at Brown University.

The Decline of Jefferson/Rise of Adams

Over the past few years, I can't help but take not of the fact that there seems to have been a major shift in the way both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams have been perceived. Obviously the hit HBO drama on the life of John Adams has done much to bolster this one time self-defeating founder. As Adams himself put it, "History will remember very little of me...I will have no monuments."

While it is true that John Adams was once considered a "lesser" of the Founding Fathers, recent events and research have propelled Adams to a higher level of recognition and appreciation. On the flip side, the once prominent Thomas Jefferson has witnessed a decrease in his popularity. The man who was once hailed as the greatest political mind of his era is now being remembered more for his views on religion and slavery. Jefferson's lack of Christian orthodoxy, combined with his views on slavery (not to mention the huge impact of the Sally Hemmings affair) have caused Jefferson to slip a little.

Is this fair? Should we promote Adams at the expense of Jefferson?

If there is one thing I've learned from these two men it's that they are virtually polar opposites from one another. When we compare Adams and Jefferson, we are often comparing North v. South, Puritan v. Anglican, Federalist v. Republican, aristocrat v. farmer, passionate v. reserved. I guess it would only be natural for one man's stock to go down as the other's went up. With that said, however, I feel that both men deserve to be judged not against one another, but solely on their own merits.

2008 Pulitzer Prize Winner

The 2008 winners of the Pulitzer Prize were announced to the public yesterday, and though this year's winner in the history category is not a historian of the American Revolution, I still believe that his book is worth mentioning here. Historian Daniel Walker Howe is this year's recipient for his work, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848. In recent years, Howe has become one of the foremost historians of the Jacksonian Era, which is essentially an extension of the American Revolutionary era. You could easily make the claim that the study of the American Revolution extends into the early parts of the 19th century, which would make Howe's work a valuable resource for those that are interested in this time period.

Howe's book was published by Oxford University and is part of the Oxford series on American history (which is arguably the most respected multi-volume series of American history ever published). Mark Noll, one of the most respected religious scholars of our day, stated that Howe's book is, "probably the most culturally sensitive political history as well as the best politically informed social history ever written for this transformative period in American history." The publishers for Oxford University had this to say about Howe's breakthrough work:

The Oxford History of the United States is by far the most respected multi-volume history of our nation. The series includes two Pulitzer Prize winners, two New York Times bestsellers, and winners of the Bancroft and Parkman Prizes. Now, in What Hath God Wrought, historian Daniel Walker Howe illuminates the period from the Battle of New Orleans to the end of the Mexican-American War, an era when the United States expanded to the Pacific and won control over the richest part of the North American continent.

Howe's panoramic narrative portrays revolutionary improvements in transportation and communications that accelerated the extension of the American empire. Railroads, canals, newspapers, and the telegraph dramatically lowered travel times and spurred the spread of information. These innovations prompted the emergence of mass political parties and stimulated America's economic development from an overwhelmingly rural country to a diversified economy in which commerce and industry took their place alongside agriculture. In his story, the author weaves together political and military events with social, economic, and cultural history. He examines the rise of Andrew Jackson and his Democratic party, but contends that John Quincy Adams and other Whigs — advocates of public education and economic integration, defenders of the rights of Indians, women, and African-Americans — were the true prophets of America's future. He reveals the power of religion to shape many aspects of American life during this period, including slavery and antislavery, women's rights and other reform movements, politics, education, and literature. Howe's story of American expansion culminates in the bitterly controversial but brilliantly executed war waged against Mexico to gain California and Texas for the United States.

By 1848 America had been transformed. What Hath God Wrought provides a monumental narrative of this formative period in United States history.

Though lengthy in his prose, Daniel Walker Howe's What Hath God Wrought is, without question, a must-read for those interested in the history and development of early America. The book deserves a resounding five stars!

The United States of Amnesia: America's Historical Illiteracy

I've been wanting to bring up this topic for a long time but decided not to, being that this blog is dedicated primarily to the history of the American Revolution. After recent events, however, I have had a change of heart. While this posting may not have a lot to do with the American Revolution in particular, it does have a great deal to do with the study of history in general. I hope you will all take the time to read this posting because I believe it is an issue of supreme significance to us all.

A recent survey conducted by the Nation's Report Card 2001: U.S. History indicated that more than half of American high school seniors lack a "basic" understanding of American history ("basic" meaning questions like "What was the Holocaust," and, "Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?"). To make matters worse, a 2003 Roper Survey of Americans found that only 38% of Adults and 53% of students knew the meaning of the word Holocaust. Another 68% of Americans were unable to name at least three signers of the Constitution. In Diane Ravitch and Chester Finn's 1997 report, What Do Our 17-Year Olds Know?: A Report on the First National Assessment of History and Literature, it was found that the answer was little: One out of five students thought Watergate occurred before 1900 and only one-third could place the Civil War within the correct half-century (click here for a link to these sources).

In an excellent piece written for the National Review, William J. Bennett points out the fact that current high school and college students are performing far worse in American history than in reading or math. Bennett continues his argument by alluding to the fact that funding for historical education is virtually non-existent, and that current historical resources are both outdated and biased:

Many of our history books are either too tendentious — disseminating a one-sided, politically correct view of the history of the greatest nation that ever existed; or, worse, they are boring — providing a watered down, anemic version of a people who have fought wars at home and abroad for the purposes of liberty and equality, conquered deadly diseases, and placed men on the moon...What a shame that great men and women like George Washington, Abigail Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Amelia Earhart, Jesse Owens, Martin Luther King Jr, and so many others should be consigned to brief mentions only, and then to the sighs of uninterested study. Their stories are just not told.

Historian David McCullough, who in recent years has become the most outspoken proponent for the advancement of historical education, has stated on numerous occasions that we are facing the prospect of national amnesia. “Amnesia of society is just as detrimental as amnesia for the individual. We are running a terrible risk. Our very freedom depends on education, and we are failing our children in not providing that education.” McCullough also adds that we cannot single out our youth exclusively, but that we should take note of the historical ignorance of the Adult population as well. Since the overwhelming majority of Americans obtain their historical knowledge from Hollywood, The History Channel, and other forms of pop culture, McCullough suggests that we are facing a crisis of national identity.

Skeptics within the education community insist that the study of history carries less importance in the modern world than do topics such as math, science and computers. In fact the Department of Education for the State of California has determined that the study of American history should emphasize more "relevant" issues. As a result, California is currently phasing out its American Revolution and Civil War curriculums, claiming that they are of less importance to the "modern" student. In fact, the overwhelming majority of high school students nationwide are required to take only 2 semesters of history in order to graduate. Since history is included in the larger genre of Social Studies, less emphasis is placed on its importance. At the college level, history classes and professors are but a small part of what most universities call, The Department of Humanities. As a result, most college student are able to breeze through their collegiate careers without ever being required to take a single course of history.

I find it both strange and hypocritical that the study of history has become a mere subcategory in the larger arenas of Social Studies and Humanities. After all, Math, Science, English, etc. are still esteemed as unique and separate fields of study. So why not history? Historian George Lipsitz sums up this historical crisis best when he writes:

The crisis in historical thinking is certainly real. The dislocations of the past two centuries, the propaganda apparatuses of totalitarian powers, disillusionment with the paradigms of the Enlightenment, and popular culture itself have all served to make the search for a precious and communicable past one of the most pressing problems of our time.

I for one find it amazing that Americans are so quick to profess their love, admiration and patriotism for this nation, yet remain ignorant of its history and development. In many ways, this phenomenon is similar to the professing Christian that knows little or nothing about his/her religion's doctrine. How can one profess loyalty or patriotism to a nation or cause if he/she knows nothing of its history? As Cicero stated so many years ago, "History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity...one cannot become a true citizen without first gaining an understanding of history."

In a series of seminars, historian David McCullough has stressed the "historical crisis" that this nation currently faces. His words are far better than mine, so I will conclude by attaching a few of McCullough's video clips. I hope you will enjoy.


Part 2:

Informal Overview of Joyce Appleby's Recollections of the Early Republic

Since I currently have no major reading assignments in any of my classes, I have enjoyed the freedom of being able to read books of my own choosing (which is a rarity at the graduate level). Anyway one of the books that I just finished is an excellent mix of both primary and secondary source material on the early American republic. Joyce Appleby's Recollections of the Early Republic uses some of the best material available to demonstrate the convoluted nature of the early republic, not to mention the diverse opinions of its participants. Since the majority of the book consists of first hand accounts from the time period, the reader gets a personal view and not just a historical analysis.

The thing that struck me most about this book is the fact that so many people in early America, from diverse backgrounds, had many different views of the American Revolution. There was hardly a consensus amongst the people. The book gives a voice to so many of the traditional subalterns that are ignored in early American historiography.

For anyone that has succumbed to the delusion that the American Revolution was a unified movement, I would strongly recommend this book. The words of the actual people that lived the revolution will change your mind.

The Most Influential Books

Here is another topic that is sure to cause debate. Of all the books written on the American Revolution, what are the Top 5 most influential? I'm not asking you to give me your personal list of favorites here. Instead, I am asking you which books have had the greatest impact on the historiography of the American Revolution. For this question, you'll need to do a little research back into some of the older books that shaped our understanding of the Revolution. By the way, do not pick primary sources for this question. Focus on what has been written by historians over the years. I also think that this question will allow us to see how our perspective of the American Revolution has changed over time.

Though there are literally hundreds of books that have shaped the historiography of the American Revolution, I feel that these five are the most influential:

#5: An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles Beard. Written in 1913, Beard's work completely changed the way Americans understood the American Revolution. Written in what historians call the Progressive Era, Beard's book directly challenged the traditional view of the Founders as being men of valor. Instead, Beard suggested that the founding of the United States war primarily motivated by the economic interests of the rich. Though I do not agree with Beard's thesis, I also recognize the fact that this book became a major player in shaping the historiography of the American Revolution for over 50 years time.

#4 The Unknown American Revolution by Gary Nash.
Published in 2005, this relatively new book focuses on the impact of the American Revolution on the common citizenry. Instead of giving a detailed history of the battles, conventions, ect., Nash focuses on how the American Revolution was revolutionary for black slaves, women, indentured servants, immigrants, yeoman farmers, and others. The book is important to the historiography of the American Revolution because it provides a new angle from which to analyze the revolution's impact.

#3 The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 by Robert Middlekauff
Written and published in 1982 by Oxford University Press, this book has earned the distinction as being the source for a general synopsis of the wars, debates, rebellions, etc., that made up the American Revolution. The book was also considered cutting-edge because it gave the British perspective to the war as well, without criticizing the British for being tyrannical monsters (which most books prior to this one had done).

#2 The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846 by Charles Sellers
Though the book focuses on the era immediately following the American Revolution, I include it here because it has truly revolutionized the way we understand the impact of the American Revolution on society. The Market Revolution provides a detailed view of how the market economy was introduced into the American economic landscape, dissolving the traditional system of communal subsistence. Sellers proves that without the American Revolution, these changes would have never occurred.

#1 The Radicalism of the American Revolution by Gordon Wood
There is no doubt in my mind that Wood's work is the most important book to date in shaping the historiography of the American Revolution. In this book, Wood gives a detailed analysis of how the social structures of the colonies were completely changed due to the American Revolution, and how society's understanding of government, culture, religion, etc., were forever altered. This book is a must-read for anyone that is a fan of the American Revolution.

Gordon Wood on the Origins of the American Republic

I've been looking for a video clip of Gordon Wood for months and finally found one! Here in this clip, Gordon Wood addresses an audience of European scholars in Hungary. He explains the origins of the United States, the Constitution, etc. This is a must-see video. Wood provides an in-depth view of the current historiography of the American Revolution. Gordon Wood is arguably the foremost historian of the American Revolution, so give this video your undivided attention.

The American REVOLUTIONS

One of the biggest problems with the historiography of the American Revolution is that we often view it as being a massive force of radical change, which literally swept across the colonial countryside. We rarely examine the revolution at a microscopic level, but instead subscribe to the notion that the American Revolution encompassed any and all radical changes in colonial American society. Changes in religion, culture, employment, travel, economics, and social structure are rarely examined on an individual level, but are instead considered components of the whole.

Instead of viewing the revolution at a macro level, I believe that one can gain a better understanding and appreciation of the American Revolution by examining the numerous individual revolutions, which together created the atmosphere of independence. After all, the Founding Fathers (and the entire revolutionary generation as a whole) understood the revolution in these terms.

First off, I think it is important for us to ascertain just how long the American Revolution (as a whole) lasted. The war, which was merely a byproduct of all the revolutionary movements, lasted eight long years, but the Revolution itself lasted much longer.

The Great Awakening: Prior to the Stamp Act, Boston Tea Party, etc., colonial America was gripped by a religious revolution that literally transformed the way people understood deity. Instead of completely relying on a pastor for one's salvation, the Great Awakening inspired common citizens to develop an individual relationship with God. Salvation, in essence, became a personal endeavor. This new movement brought about a greater understanding on personal independence, which would play a large role in American Independence. Religions themselves began to actively recruit converts by promoting education, social programs, and community activism. In every sense of the word the Great Awakening was a religious revolution.

Breakdown of Traditional Social Constructs: Gordon Wood is without question the premiere historian on this issue. In his Pulitzer Prizewinning Book The Radicalism of the American Revolution, Wood suggests that one of the most important factors that led to independence was the transformation of the American social ideology. Instead of following the traditional social norms of Britain, in which the gentry class enjoyed the finer things of life, American colonial structure permitted a common civilian to climb the social ladder of success. By no means does this suggest that every member of colonial American society was on the same social level. Instead, we should think of colonial America as a society with less social tradition and less social disparity between elites and commoners. Wood's example of British v. colonial homes is a good illustration of this idea. Wood points out that in Britain, a common gentry would have enjoyed an estate of roughly 50-100 bedrooms, dozens of servants, and a large amount of land. In colonial America, however, the typical home of an American gentleman was 10-15 bedrooms, with much less land. The difference between the social world of Britain and America is another key ingredient in the push for independence.

The Market Revolution: Historian Charles Sellers is the foremost expert on the Market Revolution. His research has literally transformed our understanding of Jacksonian America, and of capitalism in America. Contrary to popular belief, good old-fashioned American capitalism did not begin with the Puritans in 1620. Instead, colonial America relied on the neighborhood exchange system of economics, in which each family provided for itself. There were no large markets in the early years of the United States. In fact, very little money was printed or used as a means of conducting business. Colonial families literally banded with their neighbors, creating a neighborhood exchange system, which became very anti-capitalist in nature. It was rare for colonial families to ever sell their surpluss of goods to a larger market. Instead the surplus was traded with one's neighbors, in exchange for their services.

The Market Revolution, which came along in the early years of the 19th century, changed all that. Americans began to specialize in the production of a specific good or service, which was sold for a profit. The rise of the textile industry helped to fuel this newly emerging market economy, which transformed the American perspective on labor. Instead of viewing labor as a loathsome activity that was reserved for the poor of society, labor was seen as a noble endeavor. The ideology of putting in a "hard day's work" was born. It is here that the "American Dream" was born.

The Transportation Revolution: In many ways, the Transportation Revolution is a byproduct of the Market Revolution. Colonial American society was literally situated in a savage world. The thick forests of the east, combined with its often-harsh climates, made life difficult for early colonists. The road system in the early years of the American Republic was virtually non-existent. Families that lived on the frontier lands had a very difficult time traveling to the coast or to the cities. In fact, 90% of colonists never traveled further than 30 miles from the place they were born.

The Transportation Revolution would change all that. With the advent of the steam engine, railroads, and the canal system, Americans had a much easier time getting around. Businesses and farms found these new advancements extremely advantageous for shipping and distributing their goods. Missionaries were able to stretch their web even further, thanks to the new advances in transportation. Citizens could now be better informed, thanks to the quicker exchange of information between cities.

These are just a few of the many revolutions that took place before, during, and after America's war for independence. A closer look into these individual events will show that they are, in reality, all linked. It is likely that one would not have existed without the other. When taken all together, they help to create a society that was able to embrace even further changes to their way of life. In short, these are the REVOLUTIONS of the American Revolution.

The Paradox of the American Revolution

We've talked at length on this blog about the issue of slavery. In fact, some of our best discussions have focused on this topic. As we all know, slavery is often a very heated subject in both the historical community and the general public. Needless to say, opinions and beliefs of the historical community differ over the issue of how slavery impacted the American Revolution. I'm sure we have all read historians who argue that the institution of slavery is damning to the legacy of the Founding Fathers. At the same time, we all know of writers that address the slavery issue as nothing more than an unfortunate fact of life in colonial America.

I bring this up because I believe that slavery is one of the most important issues of the American Revolution. How we choose to reckon slavery and the American Revolution is not only important, but also imperative to the historiography of early America. As most of you know by now, I tend to take a centrist view on most political and historical issues. For me, slavery is an undeniable black eye that will forever plague early American society. Their inability to effectively address the issue is the most obvious error of their generation. At the same time, however, I am forced to recognize that these Founding Fathers were, in the end, human. We would be foolish to expect perfection of them. Every society and generation has their proverbial skeletons in the closet. It would not be a stretch, for instance, to imagine future generations condemning us for allowing poverty, genocide or global warming.

Our Founding Fathers were exceptional individuals, who would stand out in almost any era of history. Their endeavors to establish a sovereign republic, where the voice of the people rules supreme is undeniably the foundation upon which we currently stand. We cannot discard all the good that they gave the world simply because they owned slaves. At the same time, we cannot give the Founders (or any slaveholders for that matter) a free pass simply because they were brilliant statesmen. In essence, the slavery issue becomes the great paradox of the American Revolution.

Keeping this in mind, I would invite you to read the following article from the Avenging Our Ancestors Coalition. The article attempts to give a quasi-condemnation of George Washington for his owning of slaves. Though I personally believe that the article has an obvious bias, I decided to post it here in the hopes that it might stir further discussion on the issue.

Here are a few segments from the article that I found most surprising. Even though this article singles George Washington out in particular, these same attacks are often leveled against every single slaveowner:

Although he personally cannot be held responsible for the institution of slavery in America, he personally — as president of the Constitutional Convention and president of the United States of America — can be held responsible for condoning, hence encouraging, slavery. He can be held so responsible because he enslaved Black human beings and because he refused to use his considerable political power to condemn slavery during his presidency of the convention and of the country...

The problem is that much of his money was earned from his investment in the slave economy and some of it specifically from the slave trade. In other words, his wealth, to a significant extent, was blood money earned literally from the blood, sweat, and tears of enslaved Africans and their enslaved descendants.

Did Betsy Ross Design the First Flag?

The contributions of women during the American Revolution (and in virtually every other era of history) have often been overlooked or obscured thanks in part to the chauvinistic trends of early historiography. Despite such trends, the occasional feminine hero has emerged from this hazy background to claim her rightful place alongside other fellow revolutionaries. Women like Abigail Adams, Dolly Madison and "Molly Pitcher" are remembered in countless paintings, monuments, and history books for their contributions to the "cause of liberty."

Arguably one of the most popular female figures of the American Revolution is Betsy Ross. In fact, the Betsy Ross House and Memorial in Philadelphia is one of the most visited tourist attractions in all of Philadelphia. We of course remember Ross as the original designer and creator of the first American flag in 1776. In fact, the first American flag is rarely referred to as the "Flag of '76" but is instead known as the "Betsy Ross Flag."

But just how true is the history of the Betsy Ross story?

As the legend states, Betsy Ross, who had recently lost her first husband in the war, received a visit from none other than General George Washington, who admonished Ross to create a banner of "thirteen stripes and thirteen stars." The stars were to be in a circular pattern, to symbolize the fact that, "no colony would be viewed above another." The legend goes on to state that as soon as George Washington's boots stepped out her front door, Betsy Ross set about making the first American flag.

Case closed, right?

Not so fast. Unfortunately there exists little to no primary sources to prove or dispute the Betsy Ross story. In fact, the only evidence we have to defend the Betsy Ross story comes from Ross's grandson, William Canby. Ross supposedly related her story to Canby (who was eleven at the time) while on her deathbed. Canby then waited another 30 years before publicly announcing the story in a paper to the Historical Society of Pennsylvania (click here to read a copy of Canby's paper). By then, roughly 100 years had passed since the alleged visit between General Washington and Betsy Ross.

Though the story cannot be 100% confirmed, it is important to remember that it also cannot be rejected. To be certain, Betsy Ross and her first husband had established a semi-successful upholstery business in Philadelphia. If George Washington had commissioned Ross to make the flag, perhaps he learned of her business while attending the Continental Congress. Skeptics argue that there is little likelihood that Washington would have visited Ross in 1776, due to the fact that he was extraordinarily busy with managing the Army.

Despite the controversy, Betsy Ross (and the flag she allegedly created) are likely to remain shrouded in mystery for generations to come. Perhaps the mystery is what makes the "Betsy Ross Flag" so intriguing. After all, the thought of a lonely and patriotic widow, bravely piecing together America's colors is as American as the treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence. But that's a story for another day.

Huckabee and the "Clergymen" Signers of the Declaration of Independence

Last October, during a Republican Presidential debate, candidate Mike Huckabee made the following comment, which has caused quite a stir on several historical blogs:

"When our founding fathers put their signatures on the Declaration of Independence, those 56 brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen, they said that we have certain inalienable rights given to us by our creator, and among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, life being one of them."

I have been intrigued by the numerous responses to this event on various historical blogs that I follow. The Boston1775 blog has witnessed an intense debate over this issue. From what I've been able to gather, most historians are in complete disagreement with Huckabee's statements, and have been piling on him ever since. The general consensus amongst historians that I have read is that only 1 out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence was a clergyman (John Witherspoon). Huckabee's campaign manager, Ed Rollins, has argued that, "at least 26 of the people that signed were ordained ministers." Rollins was able to come to this conclusion by including signers that simply participated in Bible groups as ordained ministers.

Though I am not fond of mixing politics with history, I think this is a unique chance to look at how history influences political thought. Clearly Huckabee has been trying to appeal (and he has done a successful job if I might add) to the Christian Conservative Right. I am reminded of just how polarizing religion has become in America when I read the words of John Meachem in his book, American Gospel. Meachem stated:

"There is a vast and growing literature about the Founding Fathers...and a steam of strong scholarship about the problem of church and state. Yet because faith is such an emotional subject for both believers and nonbelievers, discussion of the question of religion and public life can often be more divisive than illuminating. Secularists reflexively point to the Jeffersonian 'wall of separation between church and state' as though the conversation should end there; many conservative Christians defend their forays into the political arena by citing the Founders, as though Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin were cheerful Christian soldiers."

The current trend in American politics seems to follow exactly what Meachem has stated. Now the respective supporters of secularism and religion are jockeying to see who can most effectively twist history for his/her benefit. Do you believe that this is what Huckabee is doing when he claims that "the majority" of signers were "clergymen"?

I would reccomend that you all check out the boston1775 piece, and that you also check out this article on the ongoing Huckabee history saga.

Documentary of the French & Indian War

We often forget just how important the French & Indian War (7 Years War) really was in shaping the American colonies. So many of the struggles of the French & Indian War paved the way for the American Revolution. In a way, the French & Indian War laid the groundwork for the future to revolution to come. PBS recently did a documentary on the French & Indian War. Here is a video about it:

The Market Revolution in Jacksonan America

I realize that this posting may seem like it doesn't belong on a blog of the American Revolution but hear me out. The Market Revolution (or Capitalist Revolution) is one of the newest and most groundbreaking historical events in recent years. The idea was proposed by Charles Sellers, a professor of American history and author of the landmark book "The Market Revolution." In this book, Sellers explains how American society in the early parts of the 19th century evolved from a localized neighborhood economy to a thriving capitalist society. This change completely revolutionized American society at virtually every level. Cultural and religious ideals were changed, along with the concept of labor. Instead of seeing labor as a necessary evil (which most of our Founding Fathers believed), labor was seen as a blessing from god. Many common people found themselves able to climb the social ladder by working hard and making lots of money (which was very uncommon in the 18th century).

So why do I bring this up? Because the American Revolution was the catalyst that allowed these changes to take place. Instead of seeing the American Revolution as a war between "patriot and loyalist" or "the oppressed rebels and the evil empire," we should strive to understand it as a social revolution. Historian Gordon Wood suggests that the American Revolution was the most successful revolution in world history because it changed political, governmental, social, cultural and religious norms. The colonists were not fighting an "evil" nemesis, but instead were fighting for changes to their social structure (even though many of them never realized it).

We must stop the ridiculous notion that the American Revolution was a war against "evil" oppression. Yes, the British oppressed the colonists to a certain degree, but let us remember that the American colonies were the most prosperous place on earth for the common man. There was more freedom and equality to practice religion, embark on business ventures, or protest in those small colonies than anywhere else on the planet.

The Market Revolution became one of the major changes that these colonists created upon winning their independence. The Market Revolution established the ideology of the American Dream, and helped propel the United States to the front of world affairs.

A Problem With Early American Historiography?

Over the yars I have noticed that the influences of politics, religion, etc have managed to infiltrate the study of history. There may be no better example of this than the historiography of the American Revolution. One only needs to brouse youtube to realize how polarizing people have become over a variety of issues. It is irresponsible to "tweak" history to fit a particular agenda, but it is being done every day. The religious right in this country strives to depict our Founding Fathers as hard-core Christians (in a very modern sense by the way), while the liberal left has made our Founders out to be purely motivated by secularism.

To be honest, I am outraged at both the religious right and the liberal left. They both see no need for compromise or for an objective view of historical events. Instead, they both inject their own doctrine by misquoting or misrepresenting those of the past.

The reality is that our nation's founders were NOT what we wish them to be. Colonial America was a completely different word. Social structures, religious and political ideologies, and cultural norms were very different then than they are today. To compare the two only leads to problems. If you were to ask a colonial citizen what their definition of "patriotism" "liberty" "freedom" or "independence" was, they would give a very different answer than somebody who has lived in our modern world. Our concepts about God, religion, politics, freedom, equality, society, gender and America have all changed. It's about time people understood that.

Natve American Wars: A New Perspective

For centuries the historiography of the American Revolution has focused primarily on the colonial perspective. We teach and learn about the revolution from a viewpoint that often neglects to mention the opinions and motivations of others. Don't get me wrong, I still maintain that teaching the "traditional" historiography of the American Revolution (i.e. The Stamp Act, Boston Tea Party, Lexington & Concord, etc) is extremely important. For this post, however, I would like to deviate from the traditional history we all know so well.

When one takes an in-depth look at the American Revolution from the perspective of Native Americans, a very different and unique history comes to light. Looking specifically at the wars of Native Americans we see that this conflict was longer and more intense than we once thought. Traditional historiography teaches that the American colonies first endured the 7 Years War (or French & Indian War) from roughly 1754-1763. Following this war, America was again gripped with the war of independence from 1775-1783. A period of peace was then disrupted with the War of 1812, which lasted roughly from 1812-1815.

Now, if we forget the traditional historiography and see the same time period from the perspective of Native Americans, a different story emerges. Let us begin in 1754 with the French & Indian War. Native American tribes were divided on the issue of loyalty. Some favored France while others favored Britain. In the end, as we know, Britain emerged victorious and began a policy with the Native American tribes that greatly damaged relations. As a result, Pontiac's Rebellion in 1763 irrupts. At the conclusion of Pontiac's Rebellion, other Indian uprisings occur throughout the frontier, which last until the American Revolution. With the American Revolution, Native American tribes again choose sides (many fighting for the British) from 1775-1783. At the conclusion, Native tribes were again treated to less than favorable treaties and practices that kept tensions high. As a result, further war came about. From the conclusion of the American Revolution to 1794 the former colonies were forced to deal with the Chickamauga Wars. In the north, other tribes began the Northwest Indian War from 1785-1795. At the conclusions of those conflicts, other smaller wars were fought on the frontier. During the War of 1812, the famous Indian warrior Tecumseh initiated the Creek wars, which let to the infamous battle of Tippecanoe.

So what am I getting at? Look at the dates. What we think of as SEPARATE wars from an American perspective could actually be seen as one long continuous war from the perspective of Native Americans. Look again at the dates:
French & Indian War: 1754-1763
Pontiac's Rebellion: 1763-1766
Smaller Frontier Wars: 1766-1773
American Revolution: 1775-1783
Chickamauga Wars: 1779-1794
Northwest Indian War: 1785-1795
More Frontier fighting: 1800-1810
Tecumseh & Creek Wars: 1812-1814

From the perspective of Native Americans, this is one long war, which they had been fighting even before the French & Indian war. Perspective is an interesting thing huh!