David

Mr. V

AP History

16 October 2017

Most of people think that The American Revolution is not being radical, which

thought of as a conservative affair. Because it was not like China which people were

killed, property was destroyed, and The American Revolution is an unbloody

revolution. The American revolutionary leaders were too solemn and too much

gentlemen. However, Gordon S. Wood sees the revolution as socially radical. The

reason is that it changed how people built and saw their relationships with other

people. Wood said: if we measure the radicalism by the amount of social change that

actually took place- by transformations in the relationships that bound people to each

other.

I agree with him. First, Wood focused on the political, social hierarchy that

stemmed from the monarchical system. He said: The social distinctions and

economic deprivations that we today think of as the consequence of class divisions,

business exploitation, or capitalism, racism were in the eighteenth century usually

thought to be caused by the abuses of government. The American Revolution

changed their governments; it destroyed monarchy and established republics, so they

changed their society as well as the government. It transformed American society,

turning it into one new society unlike any that had ever existed anywhere in the
world. People were being egalitarian-minded bustling, they were far from

remaining monarchical, hierarchy ridden, who became liberal and democratic people.

Wood used the examples to show the difference between monarchy and new

society. He compared Courtiers and Patriots. The Courtiers were the people whose

position came artificially from above-from hereditary that ultimately flowed from the

crown. Then the Patriots were the people who not only loved their country but were

free of dependent connections and influence, their position came from their talent and

recognition by the people. I think this is a strong point, because he used the instances

to show people the relationship and differences. So the independence was not just

independence of the country from British, and also the independence of individuals

from personal influence. Because in a monarchical country of numerous

patron-client relations, nothing could be more radical than this attempt to make every

man independent.

Also the Revolution made the anti-slavery and womens rights movements of the

nineteenth century. But this is his weak point to support his argument. Wood said the

American society is based on freedom, independence, individual and liberty. However,

the slavery stranded on a totally opposite position. Slaves had no freedom; they were

even account as a man. They were equal three fifth person. In 1775, John Adam said:

there are two sorts of men in the world, freemen and slaves. Then Wood said the

slavery had not been in the older monarchical society which is the society before the

colonies.