The Radicalism of the American Revolution

“‘Gentleman’ originally meant noble by birth and applied to all of the aristocracy, including even the king. But from the sixteenth century on, with the enlargement of the aristocracy from below by the entry of numerous lesser gentry, the hereditary peerage sought to confine the term ‘gentleman’ to all those who stood as ‘a middle rank betwixt the nobles and common people.’”

Gentlemen play an important role in the American colonies in that they were the larger portion of aristocratic class and were the men who most often held political office before the Revolution. This definition marks the line between noble aristocrats and common men. It also illustrates the strict lines in the hierarchy that became significant as the social structure of the colonies changed through the Revolution.

“So distinctive and so separated was the aristocracy from ordinary folk that many still thought the two groups represented two orders of being. Indeed, we will never appreciate the radicalism of the eighteenth-century revolutionary idea that all men were created equal unless we see it within this age-old tradition of difference. Gentlemen and commoners had different psyches, different emotional make-ups, different natures. Ordinary people were made only ‘to be born and eat and sleep and die, and be forgotten.’”

Wood explores his theme of Radicalism and its Role in the American Revolution in his consideration of the social structure of the American colonies. Wood points out how radical it was for the founding fathers to declare all men equal when the hierarchy of the colonies was structured in such a way that the common man was considered to be inconsequential to the character of the nation. This opinion began to change as the population boomed, people began to move in large numbers, and a change in the economy began to alter the way the common man was viewed.

“Paternalism was meaningful to the colonists because much of their society was organized in families or in those stark dependencies that resembled the relationship between parents and children. For the colonists, the family, or what modern scholars call the household, was still the basic institution in the society and the center of all rights and obligations.”

Wood explores the reasons why paternalism became an important aspect of society in the colonies. Not only did the monarchy model a paternal figure, but families also settled in small communities in the colonies where a father-figure was often the person in control. At the same time, the head of a household was responsible for everyone in the family, including dependents who were not related, such as servants.

“The land belonged to the male line. English laws of inheritance provided for primogeniture (all lands passing to the eldest son) when there was no will, and for entail (allowing a testator to keep the landed estate intact through the stem line of the family).”

The laws of inheritance during the colonial period in America reflect the paternalism and connection to monarchial government that was prevalent in the colonies. The use of entail ensured that the land remained intact while supporting as many of the male children as possible, and it also protected the reputation of the family. Entail ensured that the sons would remain close to home to care for the dependents within the family, such as the widowed mother, unmarried sisters, unlanded sons, and servants.

“People were expected to know those with whom they were dealing—which was why letters of introduction were so common and so essential. People were immediately conscious of strangers and unattached persons and subjected them either to intense questioning or to openmouthed staring.”

The small communities in which colonists lived in the early years of the American colonies created situations in which privacy was limited and everyone knew everyone else. This resulted in a sense of community that continued into the 18th century despite the growth of the original 13 colonies. This sense of community led to a sense of closeness that made business dealings personal. Gentlemen didn’t do business with people they didn’t know or anyone whom someone they knew and trust could not vouch for. This would change as commerce transformed in the colonies, but the fact that this was the starting point for most colonists shows how quickly things changed and how difficult that change was for some.

“Personal relationships of dependence, usually in the form of those between patrons and clients, constituted the ligaments that held this society together and made it work.”

Before the Revolutionary War, merchants, tradesmen, and artisans often depended on patrons to support their work. It didn’t occur to these people to sell their goods to other people in the colonies, and moving their product to Europe was impossible without support. For this reason, the paternalism that began out of necessity in the colonies continues as a part of commerce. This situation was what everyone understood, and it supported society, but it wouldn’t be long before merchants, tradesmen, and artisans would find other ways to sell their product and commerce in America, altering not only the lives of these workers but the very fabric of the social structure.

“Weak in fact as royal authority may have been in America, the crown was responsible for the empire, and as such it ultimately bore the burden of nearly all personal political influence exercised in the colonies.”

Historians have argued that the monarch had little control in the colonies in the mid to late 18th century. However, Wood argues that the crown did have influence in politics due to the fact that those who held political office and had backing of the crown often wielded more power than those who had no connection to the crown. In this way, patronage allowed the crown to continue to exert control over the colonies despite distance and changing sentiments toward the monarchy.

“So confused and blended did monarchy and republicanism become in the eighteenth century that people, especially in the English-speaking world, had trouble precisely defining them. Republicanism, in particular, assumed a wide range of meanings and, as Alexander Hamilton said, was ‘used in various senses.’”

Republican values that came with the Enlightenment infused themselves into the American colonies in the years before the Revolution. However, the inability to define what those values were caused confusion and later led to the fact that many aspects of monarchy remained in place in the American government, even as Americans embraced a republican view in nearly all respects. Later, it also became clear that the founding fathers’ view of republicanism was different from that of the younger generation coming up behind them.

“Republicanism thus put an enormous burden on individuals. They were expected to suppress their private wants and interests and develop disinterestedness—the term the eighteenth century most often used as a synonym for civic virtue: it better conveyed the increasing threats from interests that virtue now faced.”

People representing constituents as part of a political office in the colonies often brought with them their own wants and desires, using those to influence local politics. With the infusion of the Enlightenment in the colonies and the embracing of republicanism, however, political leaders were meant to separate themselves, and their personal needs, from public service. This became part of the definition of gentlemen in the mid to late 18th century, another way in which society continued their class hierarchy and the idea that only gentlemen could be leaders. This would change after the Revolutionary War: The idea of disinterestedness would fall out of fashion as the rise of equality changed the nature of politics.

“The American aristocracy, such as it was, was not only weaker than its English counterpart; it also had a great deal of trouble maintaining both the desired classical independence and its freedom from the marketplace. Few members of the American gentry were able to live idly off the rent of tenants as the English landed aristocracy did.”

The definition of gentlemen is an important aspect of American society. The way that this definition changes over time marks the radicalism of the founding fathers and changes within American society. Early in the colonies of America, gentlemen are defined as educated men with good manners who live without the need to labor. However, by the time hints of revolution begin to show, this definition is already changing as the economy and social structure of America makes it difficult for most gentlemen to live a life free of labor. In time, the idea of idleness among aristocrats would become synonymous with laziness, thus changing the definition of gentleman once again.

“The growth and movement of people strained and broke apart households, churches, and neighborhoods. Young men particularly became more autonomous and more independent of paternal and patronage relationships. Families necessarily became less involved with the larger society, and extended lines of kinship frayed and snapped.”

The close ties that American society had been based on since early colonization began to break with the Enlightenment and the infusion of republican ideals. However, it was changes in commerce and the economy as well as increasing population and movement within and outside of the original 13 colonies that began to further break these close community bonds. The breaking of these bonds moved society toward more open commerce and changed the way in which society viewed class distinctions.

“The family core of father, mother, and children became more distinct from the household, and affection became more important than dependency in holding the family together. Lower infant-and-childhood mortality enabled parents to make a greater emotional investment in their offspring. Parents paid more attention to the individuality of each child and sentimentalized the family’s inner relationships. The practice now developed of giving children affectionate nicknames, and composite family portraits including father, mother, and children became more common.”

As republican ideals came into society, so came changes in the way that parents related to their children. Before the Enlightenment, children were taught discipline over all else and were often seen as dependents equal with servants. However, this thought changed with writings by Locke that suggested children were blank slates that could be molded any way a parent should choose. These changing ideas on parenting caused confusion and changed the way that people looked at paternalism, foreshadowing some of the social changes that would come with regard to paternalism.

“Such a change marked a real and radical revolution, a change of society, not just of government. People were to be ‘changed,’ said the South Carolina physician and historian David Ramsay, ‘from subjects to citizens,’ and ‘the difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who collectively, possess sovereignty. Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another.’”

After the Revolution, society began to change quickly due to the republican ideals the people embraced. A part of this was the end of the monarchy that had loosely ruled the colonies, as well as the paternalism that had been part of American society since its founding. The difference was so radical that it created a sense of equality that people embraced wholeheartedly, but it also lead to so many changes over such a short period of time that people struggled to adjust.

“But enlightenment was not simply a matter of material prosperity, of having Wedgwood dishes and finely pruned gardens. It was above all a matter of personal and social morality, of the ways in which men and women treated each other, their children, their dependents, even their animals. Such enlightened morality lay at the heart of republicanism.”

The way that Americans viewed themselves changed with the social changes that came with the Revolution and Enlightenment. Touching on the theme of Changes Within Social Structure, Wood explores how changing thought in regard to relationships as well as the way people thought of themselves led to a sense of equality that would occupy the thoughts of all Americans after the Revolution, particularly the common people. Not only did people begin to feel more equal to one another due to republicanism, they felt equal because they were becoming as enlightened as the aristocracy, leveling the playing field even more.

“In this new republicanized world all superior-inferior relationships tended to get sentimentalized, when they were not denied altogether. Consequently it is not surprising that ‘friendship’ became the term, the euphemism, most used to describe every conceivable personal relationship in the social hierarchy, including some of the most unequal and dependent.”

Part of the ideals of republicanism is that men should be more in touch with their feelings and should show kindness and affection where they can. As part of this, gentlemen began to think of their personal relationships in a different way. The barriers between the different classes consequently began to come down in a way that foreshadows a time when all men would think of themselves as equal, eliminating the idea of superior-inferior relationships.

“But how to prevent Americans from ‘sliding down into the mire of a democracy, which pollutes the morals of citizens before it swallows up their liberties’? Ames, like many American conservatives ever since, tried to draw a sharp distinction between a republic and democracy—a republic differing more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism.’ But since democracy was an extension of republicanism, the distinction was difficult to maintain without repudiating the Revolution itself.”

The idea of the American government becoming a democracy was frightening to many revolutionaries because it wasn’t what they had envisioned for the new country they were creating. Although republic and democracy seem to have similar definitions, they were very different in the eyes of revolutionaries who imagined that, although they were moving away from the monarchy, they would still have class distinctions and gentlemen to run the government for the common man. Yet changes in society and the overwhelming sense of equality that came with them caused the country to take the idea of a government of the people by the people more literally than the founding fathers intended.

“It was not just their lack of ability that disqualified artisans from important governmental office. It was their deep involvement, their occupations, in work, trade, and business—their very interestedness—that made such ignoble men unsuitable for high office. They lacked the requisite liberal, disinterested, cosmopolitan outlook that presumably was possessed only by enlightened and educated persons—only gentlemen.”

Attacks on the aristocracy are seen almost immediately after the Revolution, changing the hierarchy of the American social classes. This demand by artisans to become part of the government shows a change in the paternalistic social construct that had once ruled the colonies and a changing definition of what makes a good politician. It also foreshadows a time when common people would not only seek political office but would dominate the government.

“Gentleman had traditionally assumed that leisure, not having to work for profit, was a prerequisite of their genteel status. Now, however, such gentlemen who were ‘not…under the necessity of getting their bread by industry’ were accused of living off ‘the labour of the honest farmers and mechanics.’ Their ‘idleness’ rested on ‘other men’s toil.’ Gentlemen who ‘do not labor, but who enjoy in luxury, the fruits of labor,’ had no right to ‘finally decide all acts and laws’ as they had in the past because their ‘interest is at such a remove from the common interest.’”

The definition of gentleman changes many times in America. After the Revolution, the republican ideals that infused themselves into the American consciousness changed the way that the common man regarded the gentlemen who had traditionally run the government. This change in thought brought about a time when common men made the move to take political office in an attempt to focus public policy on their interests more than the interests of the aristocrats.

“In an ideal republican world, government officeholders ought to serve without salary. Receiving profits from a public office smacked of interestedness and tainted the officeholder’s virtue.”

The debate over whether politicians should be paid began shortly after the Revolution. Many gentlemen in America were never as wealthy as their English counterparts and struggled to serve in political office without engaging in business activities to support their families. While the founding fathers were set on creating a republic in America, this debate did result in the decision to pay all federal office holders.

“Everything seemed to be coming apart, and murder, suicide, theft, and mobbing became increasingly common responses to the burdens that liberty and the expectation of gain were placing on people. The drinking of hard liquor became an especially common response.”

Touching again on the theme of Changes Within Social Structure, changes came so fast that people struggled, some turning to violence and others to alcohol to handle the psychological burden of the changes. Americans responded to these changes like children who lost a parent: They lost the paternalistic connections that were once the foundation of their society and were left unmoored, struggling to find their place in this new world.

“Farmers could sell their produce to Americans and could buy their manufactured good from Americans; and if the artificial political obstacles of the states could be eliminated, the whole country could be linked in trade and prosperity.”

While America’s economy was still largely based in agriculture, inland trading was becoming big business. Exploring the theme of Changes Within Social Structure, it becomes clear that by removing the restraints of patrons on artisans, merchants, famers, and other tradesmen, the ability of Americans to trade with one another for a profit was changing the way that everyone did business. Manufacturing also changed the way families provided for themselves, not only changing the economy but also lifting families into new income brackets that changed the way that society viewed luxury goods and prosperity.

“It was frightening and bewildering to many—that a whole society should be taken over by moneymaking and the pursuit of individual interest.”

The stark difference between the older generation and the younger generation is here. The founding fathers and their generation were shocked by the direction society took after the Revolution, surprised that the ideals of republicanism could lead to ideas that were so opposed to the very definition of gentleman. Yet, it is the republican ideals that led to these differences: The idea that men are equal and that work is not merely for survival inspired the younger generation to these ideas, threatening the comfort of the older generations still caught in their paternalistic ideals.

“Middling sorts in America appropriated the principal virtues of the two extremes and drained the vitality from both the aristocracy and the working class. By absorbing the gentility of the aristocracy and the work of the working class, the middling sorts gained a powerful moral hegemony of the whole society.”

Changes in American society happened so quickly that Americans lost their identity and no longer knew how to define themselves. New definitions had to be created as new class distinctions emerged. By becoming a country that consisted mainly of the middle class, America took on a character that was nearly opposite to the one that the founding fathers had lived and labored under all their lives. This underscores the difficulties the founding fathers had with the success of the republic they had designed and the fear they felt at watching it slide into democracy.