Reading 4 Rev. Republicanism

OK, I have to apologize to all of my students first, for this late post to the text blog.  I had a meeting tonight with the Curriculum Subcommittee of the School Committee to introduce and answer questions concerning our Leadership Academy proposal.  For those of you who have not heard about this, we are planning to open a thematic academy inside New Bedford High School in September 2010.  Take a look at it if you want and give me some feedback, especially questions.  We are getting ready to let students know more about this opportunity, and you’re on the front line. 

Now to the reading.  This might be one of the shortest reading assignments of the year, but I think it is one of the most important.  At heart isn’t events, but ideas.  Your text says that historians call this ‘revolutionary republicanism’ but really it is one very prominent historian who claims this.  His name is Gordon Wood and he is one of the most acknowledged scholars on the American Revolution.  His book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1991) changed many minds about this subject.  Wood’s claim is that there was a unique element to what the founders were doing.  Your book hints at this but doesn’t go into great depth.  It mentions mixing Enlightenment ideals with English political thought and the colonist’s ‘own experiences’ to make their own blend of change.  Check it out.  Wood also claims strongly that American society was changed, not just its politics.  This is important, because changing what people think is a lot harder than changing what they do.

A PLOT AGAINST LIBERTY (175) Here’s the question: Is England’s loss America’s gain?  This section mentions that there is corruption and oppression within the structure of government in England.  It doesn’t mention that, at this moment in history, that there was no clear alternative to British rule.  Much of what we know about colonial assemblies exists within the context, and the benefits, of the British empire.  Once on their own, the colonies had to invent their own system of government – much to their own failures and mistakes.  But what is the ‘plot’ that the section title refers to?  Is the British system intentionally setting itself against the colonies, as if revolution was an apple falling ripe from a tree rather than something consciously grown from a seed?  You tell me.  Look at the primary sources.

Your text also claims, “Merchants saw a coordinated attack on their “lives, liberties, and property.” If a man was not secure in his property, he could not be secure in his citizenship, for it was property that gave a man the independence to shape his identity.” This is a very interesting statement.  Property gives a person their independence?  Think about the implications behind that statement even today.  Does wealth bestow rights?  Think about the people during this period that didn’t have property.  Women, Native Americans, African Americans, indentured servants, and the poor were not included.  Ever heard of the Regulators?  Look up their story in this context.

REVITALIZING AMERICAN SOCIETY (175)  This section is very brief, but the main point is one of moral regeneration.  That’s probably a new idea to many of you, but it is worth thinking about.  Were the American colonies going to simply replace an old system with a new one, or were they going to change the fundamental relationships of power between individuals and their government.  And were they going to go beyond that (government) as well.  Would the poor have  economic rights?  Would women have equality?  This is one of the dangers of any revolution.  Once you begin ‘change’, how do you stop it?  Do you?  Other countries have seen their revolutions devolve into in-fighting over these issues, sometimes bloodily.  It was definitely on the minds of the founders later on…