Ex Post Facto

Reading: Wood, The American Revolution, pp. 91-135.

In these two sections on “Republicanism” and “Republican Society,” Wood puts forward his argument that the American Revolution was indeed revolutionary, and not simply because the colonies gained independence. The revolution had several unforeseen consequences. Having rejected their king, the Americans began questioning other forms of hierarchy as well. While they by no means overturned all social hierarchies, they nevertheless created the most egalitarian society of European origin in the western world.

Wood comes from (and helped create) a school of thought that places heavy emphasis on the role of a “republican ideology” in both precipitating the revolution and in reshaping post-Revolutionary America. (The republican ideology has also been labeled as “Whig” or “country” ideology, because of its roots in a 17th- and 18th-century political movement in Britain that downplayed the authority of the crown.) Perhaps the dominant element of the republican ideology was the belief that liberty was fragile and had to be jeolously guarded, lest it be wiped out by corrupt, power-hungry leaders. (For more on the republican ideology, follow this link.)

Republicanism was not the only ideology at work, however. As they shrugged off their allegiance to the crown, the revolutionaries also tended to follow Thomas Paine in rejecting monarchy and aristocracy altogether. Instead, they accepted the principle articulated in the “Declaration of Independence” that “all men are created equal” and in possession of certain fundamental rights. The revolution thus encouraged egalitarianism, within certain limits.

The notion that all people have a basic set of rights is part of the ideology of “liberalism,” which Wood also refers to. It’s important to note, here, that today we use liberal to label politicians and voters who tend to support government regulation and intervention. But the classical liberalism of the revolutionary period did no such thing. The liberalism that Wood writes about was an ideology that was suspicious of government power and that valued individual rights and liberty above all else.

Republicanism and liberalism constituted overlapping worldviews that reshaped how many Americans thought and behaved during the revolutionary and early republic periods. People of the time, however, did not use these labels (at least not quite in the same way that historians use them).

Perhaps the most important questions to ask, using these two sections, are:

(Note: These guidelines are for the Position Papers for the Early American Republic course.)

Three times during the semester, you will submit a 2-page “Position Paper” both on paper and to the D2L dropbox. The schedule in the course syllabus specifies the due dates and topics.

Follow these guidelines for each position paper:

Wood’s opening section on the “Origins” of the American Revolution quite fittingly takes us back to the 1760s, to the end of the “French and Indian War,” which was actually a small part of a global war for empire between Britain and France and their respective allies.

As Wood shows us, that war may have ended with British victory in 1763, but rest of the decade was tumultuous both in British America and in the British Isles. In British North America, the war was followed by Pontiac’s Rebellion, the Paxton uprising, and the creation of the Proclamation Line, which assuaged American Indians but offended colonial land speculators and would-be trans-Appalachian settlers. Meanwhile, the colonial population was growing rapidly, and new settlements were being created at an astonishing pace. Conflicts between eastern and western colonists became a problem not only in Pennsylvania (the site of the Paxton uprising) but also in the Carolinas, where vigilante “Regulator” movements challenged established authority. (pp. 11-12.)

In the midst of this colonial tumult, a disordered imperial administration began imposing new taxes and regulations upon the North American colonies in an attempt to raise desperately needed funds. As the aggrieved colonists petitioned and protested against these new measures, it became clear that they had developed their own ideas about how they fit into the British empire, and their conception did not fit with Parliament’s vision of the how the empire should work.

The colonists began collectively expressing their understanding in 1765 with the “Declaration of Rights” of the Stamp Act Congress, which had been attended by delegates from 9 colonies. They spoke just as loudly (to British officials) via mob action that prevented the Stamp Act from going into effect. They also exerted economic pressure through consumer boycotts. These combined measures succeeded in swaying Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act, but Parliament also declared its right to legislate for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever” — leaving little doubt of their self-conceived supremacy. (pp. 28-30)

I see several important questions to ask about this section of the book:

If you would like to read another primary source on this subject, take a look at John Dickenson’s Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (1767), which was very influential.  (See especially letter two.)

This page is for students taking my UWGB course on the Early American Republic. Students in this course should become familiar with the following resources:

Course Postings (I will regularly make posts regarding the course readings. You can earn credit for posting a substantial comment on my posts. You can continue or question a line of thought, add additional information, etc.)

Writing Rules (Adhere to these rules for all written assignments. You can also browse for other advice on writing.)

Position Papers (Instructions for the assigned position papers.)

Del.icio.us Links (This page includes links to most of the online course readings, including anything marked “www” in the syllabus. Use the “tags” on the right side of the page to find readings for each unit. You can also browse the tags here.)

D2L (Log in here to download materials, upload essays, and track your grades.)

You can access the course del.icio.us links using the tags below.

Histories

James McPherson, What They Fought For (1995)  {This is a very brief analysis of why the rank and file soldiers (from both sides) fought in the war. JM drew extensively on letters written by soldiers. This book does a pretty good job, as far as it goes, of capturing some of the intellectual and cultural reasons that men went to war–as opposed to the politics that led to the war. But as one of my graduate school mentors pointed out to me, there are more “primal” forces that drove men to enlist but that aren’t revealed in their letters or in this book.}

James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (1988)  {This is a lengthy and very popular, yet scholarly, account of the origins and course of the war.}

Novels

Stephen Crane, The Red Badge of Courage (1895)  {Crane was not even born at the time of the Civil War, but he had listened to plenty of stories about the war, and he was able to tell a story that rang true.}

E.L. Doctorow, The March (2005)  {Doctorow tells a great story about Sherman’s “March to the Sea,” and he steps into the perspectives of Yankees, Rebels, and freed slaves.}

Michael Shaara, Killer Angels (1974)  {This book is a classic modern novel about Gettysburg.}

Charles Frazier, Cold Mountain (1998)  {This novel only marginally deals with the war itself, but it’s one of my favorite pieces of historical fiction, less for the romantic plot device than for the epic nature of the story.}

Films

Glory (1989)  {As far as I know, this is the best film about the Civil War. It tells the story of a famous black Union regiment.}

The Civil War: A Film by Ken Burns (1990)  {This is the documentary series that made Ken Burns famous. We have it in Media Services. The explosive sound effects are too corny for my tastes, but this is a good documentary with great images.}

Gettysburg (1993)  {This film is based on Shaara’s Killer Angels. It’s by no means perfect, but it does a nice job depicting troop movements at Gettysburg.}

Cold Mountain (2003)  {Not as good as the novel, but decent viewing.}

Gods and Generals (2003)  {This is a prequel to Gettysburg. I can’t say that I really liked it, but it’s an attempt to capture the feeling of the war.}

Sherman’s March  {This is a short and interesting online movie about Sherman’s march.}

(c) 2007 David Voelker