The Radicalism of the American Revolution

Wood maintains that the split between patricians (aristocrats) and plebeians (common men) was always present, but the confusion over who was a patrician began to be an issue. Aristocrats were the upper echelon, the class expected to govern. In the American colonies in the mid-18th century, aristocrats represented 4-5% of the population in the south and 10% in the north. Below the aristocrats was the class of gentlemen. This class was considered “noble by birth” and focused on pride, honor, action, and ambition (25). The rest of the population were the common people. This group was considered uneducated and only concerned with their basic needs. It was believed that these people required a monarchy to guide them through life, and they lacked significance in the overall character of a nation.

Wood describes several ways in which gentlemen were considered superior to the common people. They were allowed to display coats of arms and were officers in the navy or army. Unlike commoners, gentlemen would receive preferential treatment in the case of disciplinary action. Gentlemen walked, talked, and dressed in ways that separated them from commoners. Gentlemen were free from ignorance and physical labor. Any man, no matter how wealthy he was, could not call himself a gentleman until he retired from work. Lacking titles, what made a man a gentleman in the colonies was reputation. The heart of reputation was honor, or the ability of a gentleman to keep his word and not tell lies. The only people who could challenge a gentleman’s honor were those in his social class or above; a slight from an inferior could be ignored. At the same time, gentlemen were friendly with their inferiors as long as certain etiquettes were followed. Gentlemen also expected, and sometimes celebrated, the violent and boisterous behavior of their inferiors. One such example was the celebrations of Guy Fawkes’s attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605.

In this chapter, Wood considers the paternalistic nature of colonial social arrangements. Gentlemen were the head of their households and treated family and servants like children under their care. Paternalism grew in the colonies because society was mostly made up of single-family households. In most communities, there was a lack of centralized institutions; the family therefore took care of community necessities, such as teaching the children and caring for the poor or sick. Often American colonies began as small, tightknit groups, most often a family or two, that grew into communities where everyone was related.

Wood also cites how colonists favored the feudal law of inheritance called entail. This law said that land would always be granted to the owner’s direct descendants. This was favored over primogeniture because it ensured the independence of as many children as possible without dividing the land and impairing the family’s reputation. Often gentlemen would divide their land among their sons, but if that wasn’t possible, land would be given to the eldest son, to a married daughter in a trust for her sons, or to a nephew. These inheritances often came with an obligation to care for widowed mothers, unmarried sisters, less favored sons, and other dependent family members.

Family members were also a source of education for young men. The head of a household would send their sons to a relative to learn a trade, or merchants would form partnerships that would entail a relative representing them in distant ports. This family connection was true in politics as well, where newly elected officials would often be related to the previous legislators.

Wood observes that this paternalism resulted in women being completely dependent on their head of household, as laws did not allow them to conduct business of any kind on their own. Women were property of their husbands or fathers and treated like children. At the same time, children were raised with obedience as the primary objective, and many children would continue to be dependent on their parents into adulthood. Potential future inheritance became a way for parents to control their adult children’s behavior.

While social rules and inheritance restricted the freedom of most colonists, there were multiple types of enslavement that were also common during the time period. These forms of enslavement included the inherited enslavement of African people, the indentured enslavement of immigrants, and the indentured apprenticeship of the sons of upper-class citizens. All enslaved people were treated with less regard in the colonies than they were in England, often thought of as the lowest level of society.

Wood contends that no one in the American colonies was truly free. Rather than refer to their social relationships as paternalistic, they called them friendships. It was the small communities of the American colonies that created these dependent relationships. Privacy was limited in these communities and reputation was of extreme importance. For this reason, it was common for the courts to see many cases dealing with defamation. People were expected to know who they were dealing with, and society at large was expected to notice and report on outsiders. Provincial governments were small and able to address personal issues brought to them by their constituents. Personal feelings often colored political disagreements, leading to highly public quarrels or duels. Artisans were dependent on their patrons, often failing to grow their business outside of their community.

Wood also demonstrates how the American economy was dependent on interpersonal relationships. The colonists were still mostly farmers, and they did not have banks. The colonists imported more goods than they exported, causing a constant shortage of gold and silver that was essential to trade. The colonists engaged in very little inland trading. The paper money used for these trades was not always readily available, adding another reason why merchants were dependent on wealthy patrons. Barter systems continued in communities where debts and credits were kept track of in books and dealt with locally. Moneylending became a lucrative pursuit for many wealthy people in both finances and reputation.

Many debt disputes went to court where the justices were more interested in interpersonal relationships than the law. The accused were treated as children and would occasionally act like children to satisfy the magistrate’s sense of justice. Punishments were often issued publicly to cause shame.

Success often depended on who a person knew. Rising in society often required a patron who could open doors or marriage into the right family. Although modern society sees Benjamin Franklin as a self-made man, he enjoyed the patronage of aristocrats in England to help him rise in society as high as he could before he embraced his role as an American.

Wood demonstrates that this patronage was seen in politics as well. Receiving an appointment to a political post was often based on who the candidate knew more than on their qualifications. For example, when Benjamin Franklin became postmaster general, he appointed friends and family to all open posts. While the monarchy’s reach in the colonies was lacking due to an absence of direct governmental, religious, and military presence, those who had connections to the monarchy were more likely to be granted political office. Those in political office with connections to the monarchy also wielded more power than the office normally allowed.

Government in the mid-18th century was more about settling disputes than it was about enacting laws or caring about social infrastructure. This stemmed from the monarchy’s structure in which the government was only meant to carry out the king’s duty to preserve the peace. Government was more about encouraging private citizens to do what needed to be done to support the social infrastructure. This created a system in which gentlemen were the only people capable of holding public office, a burden that some felt was overwhelming. Yet, Wood observes that holding these offices did come with incentives, such as the payment of fees, as well as a reputation for self-sacrifice and honorific titles.

Wood also traces the ways in which the political system was dependent on the reputation of the politicians, demonstrating how the character of a politician was his power. Many politicians used religion to build their reputations and were quick to call out those who attempted to question their character. Due to this attention to reputation over qualifications, politics became a battle among families, which is why there were no organized political parties at the time. Wood notes that this structure often left the common people out of political debate.

The common people were, however, not powerless in this political clime. Often when frustrated with some change, the people who were most dependent would create mobs to protest. Wood argues that these acts of rebellion were often seen as a clearing of a clog in the political system and proof that the social control of the government was still working. There was comfort in the fact that many of these riots followed a set pattern, and the fact that when they began to get out of control, the personal relationships between the politicians and the commoners allowed tensions to be settled quickly.

Wood argues that while politics moving toward the late 18th century still relied on reputation, it was beginning to change as a younger generation began to move into place. This generation began to move away from monarchial traditions they saw as insincere and toward a more honest system.