The Radicalism of the American Revolution

In the 1700s, Wood describes how government by the people seemed tricky in big communities like America. People worried that not everyone would act virtuously, trust each other, or put the common good ahead of their own interests. As the Stamp Act caused unrest, the first public pressure groups formed, and by the 1770s, workers were elected to represent their interests. This started a trend towards modern American politics, focusing on diversity and interest groups.

During the Revolutionary War, farmers and manufacturers faced tough times. Money was printed to stimulate trade, and people went into debt buying luxuries, hoping for a better future. But when imports dried up after the war, farmers struggled, feeling let down. They ignored calls for patriotism.

After the war, state legislatures began to focus more on business interests. The assemblies were filled with less educated people from rural areas, and elections became more about local issues. People wanted politicians who would fight for their interests, not just aristocrats. Leaders like James Madison believed in a government that could balance everyone's interests fairly. But when the Constitution was debated, some worried it was just a ploy by the rich to stay in power. Others thought the Constitution challenged the idea that society should be equal and united.

In the 1790s, the Federalists worried about the chaos of democracy and wanted a strong government that was run by the best people. They tried to tie commercial interests to the government to keep society together. But not everyone liked this idea. Jefferson and his supporters thought less government was better. Overall, Wood argues, the debates about the Constitution showed that America was diverse and fragmented and people had different ideas about how to run things.

With the weakening patronage, the changing economy, and the spread of paper money, the aristocracy was disappearing as a social class. By 1800, the Federalist party was falling apart along with. Some accused the Federalists of attempting to create a new monarchy. Outspoken among the Federalist critics was Abraham Bishop, who accused the Federalists of using patronage to control elections and build a financial structure too similar to the British structure. Bishop accused Federalist aristocrats of being deceivers, so well educated that they could argue either side of an issue convincingly and willing to pursue whatever policy best fit their personal ambition. Bishop insisted that a republican government should be run by common people who weren’t susceptible to corruption and tyranny.

Wood indicates that, while Bishop was outlandish in his criticism of the aristocrats, he wasn’t the only one to speak out against them. In 1797, George Warner, a sailmaker, spoke out against aristocrats for looking down on the working-class men just because they hadn’t gone to college. Many critics of the aristocrats in this time period were like Warner, common men who took umbrage with the aristocrat idleness that came from their habit of freeing themselves of labor. In the 1760s, a group of mechanics were quick to insist that they were more important to society than William Henry Drayton, who had money only from inheritance. These men were quick to point out that Drayton couldn’t claim anything he owned had come about by the labor of his own hands.

Wood observes that, where work was once considered a necessity that well-bred men avoided, in this time period, work was becoming a standard by which men were judged. Idleness was associated with the monarchy, while productive labor was part of republicanism. Men who had been laborers all their lives felt as though they were all one group despite their differing professions, and as they turned on the aristocratic class, they were drawn to the Jeffersonian Republicans. Soon, the gentry class was beginning to understand that they had to take on some form of labor to keep their reputations intact.

Benjamin Franklin was accepted as a workingman’s symbol because he had worked much longer than most gentlemen. Washington, too, had always been known as a farmer and mechanic. Biographer Parson Weems also heralded him as an industrious man. As political parties were forming in the 1820s, they included everyone who worked, including gentlemen, professionals, artisans, and common laborers. These men were seen to have a common interest, and this is why they were so easily lumped together.

While work had become highly valued throughout the Western world, Wood argues that nowhere else did it blur the class lines as completely as in America. Outsiders were surprised by this focus on labor and the fact that working for money had become an honorable pursuit. There was a separation between the European attitude toward work and what was happening in America. All Americans were expected to work, a fact that leveled the classes in a way that was unprecedented in Europe. Eventually, there would come class distinctions among working Americans, but for the time being, everyone was equal.

Prior to the Revolutionary War, people in political office did not get paid. However, in 1776, a request for a small salary for elected officials came from gentlemen who were forced to leave office in order to make money in their law practices. However, some continued to refuse payment, such as Washington’s refusal to be paid as the commander-in-chief of the Continental army. Jefferson also refused to take payment for his public service, but he had personal wealth that made his altruism possible. Other officeholders had to continue to push to receive salaries. John Adams insisted that paying political officeholders was not contrary to a republican government. He argued that there were not enough disinterested gentlemen to fill all the offices of the government. Adams also criticized Washington for refusing to take a salary as commander-in-chief. James Lovell compared holding public office to being a minister or a teacher, both paid positions.

During the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, a speech written by Benjamin Franklin insisted that paying public officials would attract the wrong people. Like Adams, Franklin used Washington’s refusal to be paid as an example, but for the opposite argument. Franklin was, however, one of the wealthiest men at the convention. His argument didn’t go far with the other delegates, who were less wealthy. In the end, the convention agreed to salaries for all national officials, but allowed Congress to decide how much. This included Congress choosing their own salaries, which led to controversy as they struggled to come up with a fair amount. In the mid-1790s, the federal government struggled to fill high offices, while in 1795, William Smith claimed that several members of the House of Representative had quit because they weren’t paid enough.

While the idea of paying public officials was controversial when first introduced, it wasn’t long before the public sentiment rested with the politicians. By the early 19th century, most people agreed that in a time when labor was an honorable way to make a living, paying government officials was acceptable. Society no longer expected men to give up their time and money to run the government. The government was changing too, Wood notes, in that it was no longer focused on refereeing disagreements in the marketplace and was now bringing local, and sometimes personal, interests into the workings of government. It was also decided that all men, regardless of independence or property, could vote, bringing the common man into politics. Benjamin Latrobe wrote that this change had created a country where the people were happy, but they were losing a sense of culture. He said that, by allowing everyone to pursue their own happiness, politics and the economy were losing significance.

Competition for political office became fierce with some politicians using their position in office for personal gain. Wood cites the example of Matthew Lion, who used his role in Congress to get government contracts for himself, expressing that there was no problem with enjoying the rewards himself that were to be given to someone. Many politicians, even ones with the best interests of their constituents at heart, were engaging in electioneering. This led to the founding of modern political parties. In the 1790s, there were the Federalists and the Republicans, but these were not meant to be permanent. The Federalists were a group of aristocratic leaders. The Republicans were formed to fight monarchial tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson believed that parties should not be part of the political landscape, but Monroe came to believe that parties were necessary in a free society. Martin Van Buren was one of the first to fully embrace political parties. Van Buren was the first professional politician to win the presidency and was unknown before he helped build a political party. The primary requirement of politicians within the political party was to be loyal to the party.

While president, Jefferson struggled with his promise to rid the government of Federalist monarchical corruption but attempted to do so to keep his supporters happy. He ended up using a limited patronage that continued with James Madison and James Monroe. When John Quincy Adams took office, he found himself working with bureaucrats who were opposed to him. However, he refused to use patronage to replace these politicians and stuck to his republican ideals. Younger politicians, however, saw the value in using patronage. Van Buren argued that most political offices were elected and that the connections of patronage could be helpful.

With Andrew Jackson’s election to president came the Jacksonian revolution. Wood describes how Jackson appointed people from his own party to fill political offices, rewarding party loyalty. Jackson chose people for his cabinet who he called “plain businessmen” (303), people who were more often commoners rather than gentlemen. Jackson’s choices made it so that any man could serve in any office, and they could be rotated out again without disrupting government. New policies were put into place to safeguard the offices, such as accounting practices that kept corruption to a minimum. No longer were politicians trusted to be virtuous without oversight. Jackson’s presidency, notes Wood, introduced democratic bureaucracy to Americans and made democracy acceptable.

The quick changes happening in American society led to psychological stress that increased violent crimes and alcohol consumption. So many people were drinking hard liquor that practically everyone owned a distillery. Wood notes that, while violence wasn’t anything new in American society, it took on a bizarre character, with 10 of 12 family murders reported on between the 17th century and 1900 happening in the period between 1780 and 1825. There were even fist fights breaking out in Congress. The cities were overcrowded, and rioting became more prevalent and less controlled by paternalism. The push for individual freedom was creating a competition among the people, concerning some outsiders who believed that a society based on such things could never survive.

Population growth, movement, and commercial expansion continued to drive these changes in society. The population was made up of young people, with 70% under the age of 25 and was increasing at surprising rates. Kentucky went from 20,000 people in1780 to more than 220,000 by the end of the century. There was plenty of land to be had, and many families would move multiple times over a lifetime, often selling their land each time for a profit. With this movement, the final ties of the tight-knit communities were broken, and Wood argues that society was moving backward in terms of education and manners.

Economic information from this time period is fractured and easily misinterpreted. It is clear that America was not experiencing the same industrialization or urbanization that was happening in the same time period in England. America remained mostly agricultural and rural. In the early 19^th century, America’s labor force was 80% farmers, whereas England’s labor force consisted of only 36% in agriculture. In America, only 7% of the population lived in the cities as compared to a third of the population in England. Yet, America was highly commercial. Part of the reason for this, notes Wood, was that the rate of literacy in America was higher than most countries in the Western world, due in large part to the importance place on reading and writing contracts. Inland trading was also a big business, consisting not only of farming surplus but also manufacturing within the household. Small factories were beginning to pop up, which produced things like shoes and textiles and the employees of which were often women and children. Textile manufacturing was still common in the home as well, and farmers often doubled as merchants to sell these goods.

Internal trade raised the income of most households and created a demand for internal improvements, such as new roads and bridges, anything that aided in speeding up and lowering the cost of internal trade. International trade became second to internal trading. Internal trading increased the demand for paper money and banks despite the Constitutional ban on states creating bills of credit. Wood notes that aristocrats in America didn’t fully understand banks and what they could do. For this reason, there were only four banks in America in 1790. However, there was an explosion in the creation of new banks, with 25 appearing before 1800 and more than 300 by 1820. These banks weren’t only providing credit for government; they were providing easy, long-term credit to anyone who asked for it. These banks weren’t only in large cities, but in nearly every village throughout the country and its territories. Each bank produced paper money that was meant to represent credit that would be repaid with gold or silver, but the paper money itself quickly took on value of its own. In 1815, 200 banks had deposits and liabilities in the amount of 90 million dollars, but only 17 million in specie to back it up. Jefferson and Adams both saw this as a form of fraud. Yet these banks inspired a new move toward entrepreneurship in America.

Wood details how, in a monarchial government, corporate charters were given to private people and businesses to act toward a public goal, such as building bridges or founding a colony. In return for providing this public service, the owners of the charter were given certain privileges, such as governing a particular area or having a monopoly over a certain activity. When the American government began issuing corporate charters amidst loud protest from republicans, they transformed them by making them private and not offering monopolies. While only roughly a half dozen charters were granted during the colonial period, a new push for charters for everything from banks to manufacturing businesses and insurance led to nearly 1,800 charters being granted between 1800 and 1817. This led to state governments creating incorporation laws.

The fact that these corporate charters were private presented a new set of problems, as private businesses, incorporated banks, and other business were protected from violation or regulation by the state government. To deal with this, the judiciary had to become an entity separated from self-interest. Wood describes how this created a shift that placed emphasis on the education of lawyers. Previously, many judges were appointed to office because of social or political rank and were often not educated in the law. By the early 19th century, judges became more impartial, focusing on the law and not personal or political opinion. They became mediators for individual rights.

By the 1820s, it seemed everyone in America was obsessed with commerce. Inventors were no longer wealthy gentlemen like Jefferson, willing to forgo patents. These inventors not only wanted patents, but new rules to extend them in order to recoup their expenses. Gentlemen saw this as greed and worried that such a focus would doom the new country. When the War of 1812 began, many hoped it would refocus society in America. Wood argues that, instead, it increased this focus on commerce and self-interest by doubling down on efforts at home manufacturing and inland commerce.

Revolutionaries hadn’t removed all remnants of the monarchy. Patronage still existed on a private level. Jefferson’s attempt to remove the Federalist’s monarchial tendencies from the government changed the government in such a way that it became less of a social force. There were concerns that this lack of community would be detrimental to the new country, and gentry began to look to new ways to pull society together. There was an explosion of new voluntary associations that began to take the place of the social connections that had once been a basic part of society. However, in time people stopped coming together in these associations and donated money instead, keeping true to the individualism that had become the hallmark of American society.

Some hoped that Christianity might bring people back together again. When the founding fathers began building the new country, they didn’t think much about religion even though it was a part of their daily lives. This changed, however, with the rise of the common man. Religion had moved away from the supernatural and become a way in which men came to understand the world around them. For this reason, religion was pulled into every aspect of daily life, including politics. Rather than bring people together, however, it validated their individualism, causing some to worry that religion would push people further apart. Churches began to fragment, creating new denominations as people searched for churches that supported their personal religious doctrines. Churches no longer had the power over communities they once did, and the Protestantism of the common people began to take over.

Wood observes how the growth of the cities led to the formation of new institutions, such as relief societies that were now run by common people rather than the paternalistic gentry who once sponsored and led these groups. Rather than provide relief to those suffering in society, these new institutions attempted to get to the root of the problem by appealing to self-interest.

Americans came to recognize that in order to bond as a society as diverse as they were, they needed a common belief and behavior. This common belief came to rest in the Revolution. While many interpreted the Revolution in different ways, they all recognized that it was the Revolution that gave them their individuality and their freedom. Therefore, they bonded over their freedom and pursuit of happiness. Wood maintains that, where interest in making money was once seen as unvirtuous, it was now the thing that made all men equal. Samuel Blodget suggests that commerce should be celebrated, that the government should sponsor and incorporate joint-stock companies and then step back and allow the people to run them. Blodget insisted that commerce and business were what held American society together.

As the idea of exchange became a primary focus within the economy, paper money took on new importance. No longer could people rely on reputation to buy or sell goods. Nothing was exchanged without money changing hands, and this further eroded the traditional patronage and hierarchy that once ruled in American society. While this made people equal in terms of class, it didn’t equalize wealth. It was around this time when the term ‘self-made man’ made its debut. It was a radical idea at the time because social mobility had not been unheard of but was usually a result of patronage. Men would brag of their rise from humble beginnings, proud of their lack of social charms and education and the fact that they hadn’t needed anyone’s help to achieve their success.

Leveling the hierarchy through money, argues Wood, placed pressure on the traditional definition of a gentleman. The things that had once set a gentleman apart—his manners, his dress, and his wealth—were becoming blurred by the fact that all men dressed alike after the Revolution and more common men were referring to themselves as gentlemen. Honor had also once been the thing to set gentlemen apart from the common man, but after the Revolution, with the exception of the south, honor was associated with the monarchy. As a part of this, the tradition of dueling to protect one’s reputation came to be criticized, and this criticism increased after 1804, when Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. It seemed the code of honor had lost its meaning, observes Wood.

Traditional gentlemen found their need to work for a living an embarrassment, despite the changing definitions of the term. Some, such as Hamilton and Burr, thought of themselves as gentlemen first and lawyers second. In Jefferson’s generation, men studied law simply because it was a part of the liberal education all gentlemen should possess. However, the study of law changed in the early decades of the 19th century, transforming the profession into a working man’s pursuit like anything else. As Wood describes, the traditional gentleman was disappearing in a world where everyone called themselves a gentleman.

The traditional distinction between classes disappeared in America. Although there were still disparities between gender, enslaved and free, race, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, Wood notes, the traditional differences between the aristocrats and the common people were gone. America had become a society of the middle class, focused on the interests of the common people. Education was no longer focused on liberal arts but on practical subjects. Americans were seen more and more as uncultured and lacking in manners. Yet, the idea of a self-made man in America became romanticized in writings of the time. One of the most popular was the journal of a man named James Guild who was a farm laborer until the age of 21 and then moved to New York to find other work. He eventually became a peddler and found success, returning home to discover that he no longer had anything in common with his humble family and friends.

As common men were making inroads into the world of the aristocrats, the genteel found themselves moving downward to connect with the people. Gentlemen sought to teach the common man about art, literature, and architecture. Speeches were made about the virtues of hard work. Etiquette books became common, and manners were taught in schools. The middle class was under pressure to behave in specific ways. The way in which men treated women became a quality by which men were ranked; therefore women were treated with a new level of concern. Women were assigned feminine virtues of benevolence and were expected to use these to control their men. This raised women in the social hierarchy, taking them from dependents and servants to a special rank within society.

Wood explains how Benjamin Hawkins used this new view of women to teach women within the Creek and Cherokee tribes to manufacture their own textiles to create clothing that could be sold. When these women began making money, their husbands joined in on the work. This example highlighted the ways in which Americans manipulated their society to form new rhythms and patterns.

With a weak government, divided churches, and social institutions fragmented, no one was in control of this new society. However, it was clear that no one needed to be. In order for someone to promote themselves, they had to promote others, and in this way society was connected and functioning in a way no one anticipated. No longer was it true that eminent men or imaginative thinkers were in control of society. Individuals were responsible for their own success or failure. Wood notes that knowledge and truth became fluid, leaving Americans susceptible to deception. Yet, the common man denied the advice of the gentry who attempted to guide them. The debate over the Sedition Act of 1798 brought the debate of truth into the public arena and left the Federalists dumbfounded when the people argued that all opinions should be allowed because doing so supported freedom and independence. Printed matter, especially newspapers, were read by more common men than ever before to spread public opinion. People trusted this opinion because no one controlled it.

Wood claims that the society that emerged after the Revolutionary War was not what the founding fathers had anticipated. Many of the founding fathers who lived long enough to see the birth of this new nation were disappointed, afraid their great experiment would fail. A few, like Charles Carroll, embraced the changes in society, but most were disillusioned. Benjamin Rush wrote that the Revolution had changed the principles and morale of the American people and that the government had fallen into the hands of the young and ignorant. Rush burned all his notes on the Revolution rather than writing a planned memoir. Even Washington expressed a sense of lost hope for democracy. Many founding fathers felt as though the country had become something they no longer fit inside of. Even Jefferson, a strong supporter of the South, died believing the youth were not living up to the expectations he had for the new republic.

Wood argues that although most of the founding fathers died disillusioned with the results of the Revolutionary War, it was not because they felt they had failed, but rather because their attempt to create a new republic had worked too well. The common people had taken the ideas of equality and freedom further than anticipated. The founding fathers had imagined a republic built on the virtue of the aristocrats, but America became a place where the common man could make money and get ahead, and it worked surprisingly well.