Latest / Comps List Radio / Episode 13: 250 Series, Gordon Wood (RIP), "Creation of Am. Republic" and "Radicalism of Am. Rev."
Transcript
- Robert Ferguson: From HPO World Headquarters of the World Wide Web. This is Comps List Radio with Robert Ferguson and Marie Tottenham with our final edition of the America 250 summer series. ⁓ Marie, how's your summer going? It's going well. It's getting hot here. So entering the dog days of summer with 100 degree temperatures. But ⁓ my kids finished baseball with a win at state. So that was very exciting. ⁓ especially considering, you know, what happened with my youngest earlier this year. Now he's got a state championship ring to kind of round out baseball season. So that was a really nice end to June. And now in July, so far good, just hot. Yeah. How are you in Arizona? Hot. Yeah. Hot. Although so this is exciting. ⁓ for Arizona people, this is we have a monsoon season in Arizona. Most people outside will probably not realize that we have a monsoon season. It's the one time of year where you can kind of regularly get rain. And we are in the monsoon season. And it people who live in Arizona, it's funny, you know, everybody has their little weather ticks, right? It doesn't matter where you are in the country. You have or the world, have your little weather ticks. And in Arizona, one of the weather ticks is like, ⁓ is it gonna be Or is it going to be a big monsoon this year or not? Meaning, are we going to get like lots of rain or like no rain? Right. And in Phoenix, the valley that it sits in, ⁓ the the weather has a knack for like dissipating before it gets to the valley. So like the monsoon builds up if you live in Tucson and you get hammered with the rain every night. But if you live in Phoenix, it breaks up before you get there. But we've had monsoons three nights in a row. ⁓ nice. I'm guessing that's good. Rain is good. Rain is good. I mean, before three nights ago, I don't think I'd seen rain since January. ⁓ So ⁓ that's rough. Yeah. So I don't know. It's not that rough. I don't I don't I'm not a farmer. That's true. That's it's rough for people around you. ⁓ so yeah, that's ⁓ you know a little insight into how Arizona works. We're getting them on soon. It's cloudy today, even. ⁓ so you know, maybe we'll get another one tonight. Nice. Yeah. ⁓ anyway, we this is the last of the America 250 series, and we wanted to finish with perhaps the most iconic series of the re so-called Republican synthesis. ⁓ which are the ⁓ the two books by Gordon Wood, Creation of the American Republic and Radicalism of the American Revolution. ⁓ obviously we're talking about this at a time when Gordon Wood just tragically died not very long ago. And so reading this, ⁓ I don't know about you, Marie, but it felt very bittersweet. Absolutely, absolutely. And as I was researching for this, especially on his background, I watched some of his last interviews over the last, you know, six months as people are interviewing him for the 250th, because that's his expertise, is the American Revolution. And he was just it was brilliant to listen to him. I mean, he was brilliant. Even, you know, in his early 90s. And so it just made that even more bittersweet to know what he still had to offer the field. ⁓ even after this long. So absolutely bittersweet is a good way to put it. Excellent books, extremely important. But knowing that he is gone did put that other layer on it for sure. And and you know, more than you know, you you you mentioned the field, and I I think it's even broader than that. ⁓ for historians of the American Revolution of the Constitutional period, more so than twentieth century historians like myself, ⁓ there's this sort of Trust, I think, that you have on behalf of Americans. You it's bigger than your responsibility is bigger than just a field. You are part of the myth of the American creation. And Gordon Wood was the living embodiment of that. and so losing him again right before the 250 anyway, but just at all. It's ⁓ it's a real shock. Yes, absolutely. And he was such a cultural figure. I mean even acad I mean, it wasn't just academics who sought his wisdom on this topic. I even found that he was mentioned in Goodwill Hunting, the movie. And so he was part of popular culture as well. And I think that trust in him was important because people did trust him. They do see him as the dean of this subject. You know, he's in Ken Burns documentaries. So he really gave voice to what we know about the revolution, both academically and popul in popular culture. And and I think this is also, yeah, absolutely. And I think it's what's also interesting to mention is that it was across the political spectrum. Mm-hmm. People on the American left and on the American right were both quick to eulogize him and to commemorate him. And so he is sort of part of this shared consciousness, this shared understanding as to what the United States is. And I don't know that you'd be able to find too many figures younger than Gordon Wood, where you would still have that shared reverence for. Yeah, at this point it would be difficult. And I found out too, he was so enthusiastic and optimistic about the future of the United States. Having learned about it from its founding, he was still so optimistic at this point, even in the last few months. And that it it did. It just put a smile on my face to know here's this man who has studied the us from the very beginning, and he still thinks that the American dream, the American promise is there. And I really enjoyed I really enjoyed knowing he felt that way. Yeah. In a world of pessimism. Exactly. Right. Exactly. ⁓ Okay. So let's ⁓ Maria, I I'm I'm gonna kick it over to you, being the ⁓ esteemed biographer that you are. And ⁓ have you tell us a little bit about Gordon Wood. Yeah, so ⁓ Wood was born in Massachusetts in the early nineteen thirties. in nineteen thirty three. He came from a working class family and neither one of his parents had college degrees. I thought that was interesting. He talked about how a Latin professor is actually the one who encouraged him to go on to college or a Latin teacher in his high school encouraged him to go on to college and that changed the trajectory of his life. He was in the US Air Force in the nineteen fifties. He served in Japan. He ⁓ just he wanted to go in the foreign service initially, but he decided because of his experience with the federal government in the Air Force that that was not for him. He did not enjoy that. And so then he came back and finished his he got his master's while he was in the Air Force and finished his PhD at Harvard under Bernard Balin. And of course we talked about Wood briefly when we talked about Balin because the two do go so well, you know, hand in hand. ⁓ but Balin was his advisor. And Balin's major work that we talked about Only came out about five years before the first major Wood book. So they're working together to create this Republican synthesis. Even though Balin's the advisor, they are working together here with some of other other Balin students like Pauline Mayer as well. ⁓ his he went on to teach at Brown University, started there in 69, 1969 when his book came out. This is so the same year as his first book comes out. He's got this great job at Brownie. He's going to finish his career there in 2008 and always be connected until his death to the university. He's got many books. So as I was looking through this, you know, prolific writer, but the first two books he publishes are the ⁓ kind of most important, most significant to the way we look at him as the dean of the American Revolution. And that's, of course, the creation of the American Republic, which looks at 1776 through 1787. So From Independence to the Constitution, and then The Radicalism of the American Revolution, which ⁓ was published in 1992, and that looks at how the ideas played out on the ground after the Constitution was written. And so you have these two books. I mean, they're in conversation with each other, even though they're written years apart, they are in conversation with each other. ⁓ as we said, he played this really popular role in or this this huge role in popular culture. He wrote for the New York Review of Books, ⁓ for other you know, wrote forwards for other authors. He's writing for other publications, he's on the news, he's in documentaries, and then he said his like kind of two seconds of fame were when he was mentioned in Goodwill Hunting in that nineteen ninety seven movie. So I thought that was interesting. And of course, as we just talked about, ⁓ Wood died on June 7th of this year at 92 years old in Rhode Island where he was from. And so almost made it to the 250th, but gave a lot of interviews before his death about the two fiftieth and the significance of that. So we do have have his thoughts on ⁓ the two fiftieth. And that is a very brief biography of an extraordinary life. You know, there's a somebody published a story in the wake of his passing on Twitter where he was a somebody was a history undergraduate history student somewhere in the United States and had read ⁓ something of Woods. He was talking to his mom about it. This would have been probably in the eighties or the early nineties. And ⁓ you know, her his mom had a question and he didn't really have a good answer because he'd read the book but he didn't remember. Anyway, and so his ⁓ A couple of days later his mom calls him and says, Well, I I have the answer for you, and this is the answer. He's like, ⁓ how'd you find it? Assuming that she went and got the book out of the library or something. But no, she actually called Gordon Wood's office at Brown. ⁓ my goodness. But he answered the call, and I guess they had a lovely conversation and she asked him the question and he gave her the answer. ⁓ nice, nice. ⁓ my. There were so many stories like that, ⁓ that just showcase what an approachable guy he was and what a decent man he was for an for you know the the dean the true authority on the American Revolution yes absolutely ⁓ the living authority anyway okay ⁓ so you mentioned that Wood's book comes out five years after Balin's Marie can you remind us what the argument of Balin's book is. So he's looking at the ideas that are going to cause the or lead to the revolution and then of course the creation of the United States. So he's looking at those ideas, where they come from, how they're going to play out in, you know, the f again, the formation of the United States. And what we're gonna see with Wood is he is gonna take that a step further and look at how that actually plays out on the ground. Not not just the ideology. I mean, he does trace the political changes and the ideological changes, but he's looking at how those ideas actually you know, how normal people, everyday average people take these ideas and run with them. And they changed the meaning of them in many ways, in ways that the founders and the elite in American society and colonial society and then American society could not have imagined. Yeah. And and in it you get the n again, not just the ideological or the the the the intellectual background of it all, but the actual politics. Right. And ⁓ the actual day-to-day cut and thrust of politics and how that's influencing it. Which is a pretty considerable distinction from, say, beard. Yes. Yes. Beard emphasizes the politics too. Right. But it's from a very different perspective. And here's Wood taking the idea saying, no, no, no. Here's the ideas playing out in the political arena. Right. Exactly. ⁓ and of course Wood is argu is writing of a different period too. Right. Speaking of creation for a second before we or maybe both of them together. Does it feel like a sequel to Bailey Dew? I definitely think that the two go hand in hand. I think there's an argument made to be a s that it could be a sequel, but I think it's more of I think they just work well together. If the you know, if I'm articulating that correctly. I think they work better together. Like you could read one without the other. And you could read wood without reading Balin first. And you could would get the point of that. It would help if you read Balin first though. So There's an argument to be made for that, but I think the two work well together as a pair versus as a a sequel. Okay. I I I'm gonna ask this question now because I don't wanna forget to ask it later. What does he mean by the radicalism of the American Revolution? He's talking about the ideas behind the revolution. He's talking about how people take these ideas and change them and how really society is just flipped on its head and these social norms are flipped on their head. Where in under a monarchy when they were in the colonies, power came from the top down. So the monarch, parliament, and then the people. And then in the new fledgling United States, we're gonna see power come from the bottom up where the people are the sovereign and power, you know, they elect their leaders and their leaders answer directly to them. And so he says that this flip in society, this these changes of these social norms are one of the most radical things to happen in world history. And he makes this argument throughout, especially radicalism. ⁓ but also in creation as well, he's talking about these changes being extremely radical. But you see those play out in radicalism ⁓ in that second book that he's going to write. Yeah. I think you know it it's this notion that he's arguing against, you know, in in the American Revolutionary historiography, there's the question of continuity versus discontinuity. Right. So Some of the radical literature, some of the the ra ⁓ argues just for straight continuity between the colonial period and the revolutionary period and the new republic. You know, okay, the bosses change, but same boss, same as the, you know, new boss just like the old boss. Right? There really isn't that much change. It's still an elitist property-driven society where ⁓ you know, there's some the some of the wind, you know, some of some of the You th the the drapes have changed, but that's about it. That really ⁓ and and you know, th they're one of the things that I think is th th they're obviously not everything in society immediately changed. You know, there's if you ⁓ you ever read Rip Van Winkle? Well story. Yeah. So when Rip Van Winkle goes up the Hudson Valley before he falls asleep, he passes a pub that's called the King George. And in the pub, you know, everybody's talking politics. And everybody has a side and the con it's the exact, you know, it's it's a very politically driven conversation. He goes up the Hudson Valley, he falls asleep with the ghosts of Henry Hudson and everything else, right? comes back down 25 years later to the George Washington pub, which is now where the King George used to be, and everybody's talking politics. And it and you know, so Washington Irving is sort of making this are you know it's sort of implicitly making this argument too, like yeah, there wasn't that much discontinuity, right? Right. There was some continuity between the two periods. And right there is the and especially if you come from a radical perspective, like it's still a capitalist society, imperialist, capitalist, whatever, you know, there's still significant amounts of oppression. Obviously, the American Revolution does not change slavery in the United States. So there's this argument that there's really very little discontinuity and maybe the American Revolution wasn't particularly radical. Right. And Wood argues that it was. That there is this discontinuity and there is this radicalism. Exactly. One of the things that I've always been struck by and I have it I ⁓ and it's in radicalism, ⁓ as opposed to creation. ⁓ just the way that people dealt with their bosses. Yeah. With their betters, changes significantly according to Yes. Yes. The end of deference. Right. Exactly. There is no expl you know, there is no ⁓ expectation that you doff your cap to your social betters on the street. There is no true the the ⁓ the hard lines in society are erased. Right. And while a property class still continues to exist, you know, and there is still an an elite, the distance between them and the working class, the mechanics, is significantly, the social distance is significantly shrunk. Yes. Yes. get that and I think I I think it's in in creation when Thomas Shippen Who's a Philadelphia elite, is at the court of Versailles. And he's writing home, and he's appalled by the significant social distinction. Like Shippen is about as wealthy as you get in Philadelphia. Mm-hmm. Right. ⁓ I'd have to check into this, but I think the ship aren't the shippens the family Benedict Arnold moot marries into. It's that sounds right. I could be wrong on that. I mean, you know, Arnold doesn't come up much in creation of the American Republic. but you know, he he's from a ⁓ you know, he's very, very wealthy merchant family in ⁓ in Philadelphia. And he's a you know, he looks at the social distinction of in in in France and he's a Paul. And so and he can't believe that there is so much social distance in the and even at the court. The distance between people at court from the either the monarch or the people just below the monarch. And so there's more distance at the court of Versailles between people, let alone the regular population of France, than there is between the Shippens and the meanest people in Philadelphia. At least according to Shippen. If you were to ask an enslaved person in Philadelphia, they might have a very different sense of that. But at least among the free population, that distance has considerably shrunk. According to Wood, at least. Yes. And one of the things that I think is interesting about why he talks that about this is the end of deference, like one of the arguments he makes that really always sticks out to me when I read this book is about monetary policy. That the elite in the colonial period were lenders. You know, these are not aristocrats. We do not have aristocrats here. But they see themselves as like landed gentry. And part of being landed gentry is that you have the capital to loan to people around you. And so you would have a farmer who wants to expand his farm come to you, you know, this man on the hill, come to these ⁓ landed gentry and ask for a loan. And then that loan would be given with interest, but that that small farmer would have to show deference in order to get that loan. They would have to show deference while they're paying off that loan with interest. And the landed gentry is making money from that interest. And what we see happen over time is that colonies and then states develop paper money. And so these small farmers can go to bureaucrats and eventually to a bank to get this money. They don't have to show deference there, they just have to show that they can pay this back in some way. And so that connection between the gentry and between the population has changed. So what you're talking about there is that that distance between the classes has shrunk even more by the time we get to when ⁓ Wood is writing. And so that monetary policy, and that comes up again and again in both works, but his idea that this changes from the way money is lent and the inclusion of paper money within the economy. That's radical in itself, he says. So that's part of this radicalism that's changing, you know, as we become independent states, it's changing that. Yeah. I mean I think, yeah, and y it's the notion, it's the end of the patronage network. Right. Right. Exactly. ⁓ now, ⁓ and this kind of dovetails with my own work, what you see on the frontier, especially the southern frontier, is as it takes a lot longer for banks and financial institutions to creep in or creep across the countryside, you've essentially got country store owners and planters who function in those same old roles into the 20th century. Right. ⁓ because you don't have those same financial intermediaries. ⁓ so and the and there's sort of this expectation of deference there. Right. Exactly. Exactly. Those plantation owners are like aristocrats. They are the landed gentry. So as slavery moved west, as these plantation owners moved west, we see a continuation of that pre independence kind of society. Absolutely. Actually, yeah, this made me think maybe, maybe next year, not this year, but maybe next year, we should do Wilbur Cash's book. ⁓ I think that would be fun. I like that idea. Absolutely. We'll put that on our list. Yeah. ⁓ I I wasn't thinking we'd do that, but maybe, maybe this conversation has got me thinking we should do Wilbur Cat book. two Southern historians. We can't ⁓ we we can't help ourselves. Exactly. ⁓ all right, so ⁓ Marie, what Aside from what we've talked about so far, what are what are your what's your biggest takeaway from the book? From the books? ⁓ the way he talks about republicanism versus democracy, I think is really important because we call ourselves at different times a republic, a democratic republic, a democracy in total. And he talks about how these the the ideas like republicanism is part of the enlightenment. It is an idea that you see across the Western world. It is not just unique to ⁓ the American colonies or to the United States. But republicanism becomes more democratic in this period between independence and the constitution, between the the ratification of the constitution. And so this democracy is what pushes the landed gentry, the lawyers, the the men who go to the Constitutional Convention to write a more in a real way, and he argues this to an extent, but other historians will argue it, will think this out a little more fully in their own work, but that they're creating this conservative document to push back against the democracy that they see under the Articles of Confederation. And so this transition and then People still want that democracy after the ratification of the Constitution. So the people are still sovereign, even though they write this more conservative document to try to rein some of that in. So it's like embedded in the American people from independence to push for that power and to push for that democracy. And I think that's really what stands out to me the most here is this transition from a monarchy to what they think is the republic, but is gonna look a little different in practice as governments do. So to a republic, to a democracy, and then trying to get back to that kind of democratic republic. Now, in one of the ⁓ interviews I watched with him from ⁓ just a few months ago, he talks about how those words are almost interchangeable. Like our definition of those words has changed so much to this point that it doesn't really matter if we call ourselves a republic or a democracy or a democratic republic. That we have elements of both within our society. And so seeing him tie that together in that interview also kind of, you know, drove home that point for me. Right. You know, he he does because he he argues that republic doesn't necessarily have the same definition to them that it does to us. You know, we sort of assume that republic means the absence of a monarch. Yes. ⁓ whereas you could have a a highly dictatorial society, but still a republic. Right. Right. ⁓ in fact you could have ⁓ a hardly a a a heavily dictatorial ⁓ society that's still a people's republic. Right. Right. But he argues that ⁓ to the founders, republic and democracy, republic and and democracy were pretty close to synonymous. Right. Right. Yeah, and w in Europe you have this idea of a republic as these disinterested aristocrats who are gonna lead for the common good. You know, they're representing everybody here. They're gonna lead for the common good. The House of Commons is part of that idea. And then in the United or in the American colonies and again later in the United States, the idea of a republic again is that the sovereign is the people. So power comes from the bottom up. And they're looking at the same idea in the same language. But in such radically different ways. Yeah. And I think one of the dis well so one of the distinctions, and I and you know, maybe I just didn't make it this far through the book the first time I read it, you know, however many years ago, I never made it to the John I don't remember the John Adams essay at the end of creation. And you know, we we've talked about a lot about Alexander Hamilton, we've talked a lot about Douglas Adair, sorry, sorry, ⁓ James Madison through Douglas Adair ⁓ on a previous episode, but we haven't talked much about John Adams. And Wood gives pride a place here towards the end of John Adams, but in an interesting way. Right. And Adam seems to be so important to his story overall. Yeah. Like he's coming up with these ideas to create governments right after independence. And other colonies are listening to I his ideas, even though each colony is going to see itself as independent. I think at one point later in his life, Wood calls the colonies after independence before the Constitution as ⁓ synonymous with the European Union, like very similar to the European Union. And so Adams is this voice that they have ⁓ that's kind of pushing for governments in these different colonies becoming states that are similar to one another. Now in his idea, and at first he's very supportive of the ⁓ colonial and American idea of republicanism, but as many of these founders do later in his life, he sees this as a you know a direct threat to the republic. That he saw himself as as helping to build there. But if you want to talk about the essay at the end of creation, elaborate on that. That's well, no, I want to get I'll get there, but I want to talk, I think I want to bring up what you talked about there first because I think there is this interesting, and again, you read all these books back to back to back, you start to realize something. The your conception of the founding depends on which founder you're gonna write it through. ⁓ absolutely. Absolutely. Right. And so Beard is writing through Hamilton. Mm-hmm. Right. Adair's writing through Madison. Who do you think Balin's writing through? ⁓ what a good question. I'm gonna throw that one to you for a second while I think about that. It's a hard one, but I think it's Jefferson. Yeah. You think so, Jefferson? I think there's a lot of Jefferson in there. I could see that, yeah. And Woods writing through Adams. Absolutely. And so it is this very interesting. ⁓ yeah, I Balin's not just argue, you know, writing through Jefferson, but I think because of that ideological component, it just sort of net the philosophical component, it just sort of naturally ends up with the Jefferson or Jefferson circle, for lack of a better word. Right? Yes. That that ideology. Jefferson is much more of an ideologue. And so I could, yeah, I I could see that with Balin. Right. and ⁓ but he he because he's a New Englander, it's not Totally, you know, there's there's there's a New England in there that's inevitably gonna kind of come through. But ⁓ you know, Adair's the Southerner, so there's Madison, right? who you look at it through depends on how you interpret it. Absolutely. And and it shows you how different their ideas were. Mm-hmm. It shows you that these men are also having these discussions and they each see this founding differently. Yeah, they do. And so Adams, such a curious figure. Such a curious figure. ⁓ I I've I admit when I've read to to always sort of having a distance between whenever I read Adams and I think, and and it's maybe because I I For lack of a better word, I always think Adams has a bit of a stick up his rear end. Mm-hmm. ⁓ and I and I have a hard time kind of getting past that, you know. Right. ⁓ and so, but he's just so interesting. He's clearly like, you know, one of the great intellects of the revolution. Absolutely. Absolutely. ⁓ and he the essay at the end of this book is sort of about like, despite the fact that Adams becomes president. Adams is almost a an alien in the world that emerges from the revolution. You know, he he's ⁓ he watches the world around him in the seventeen eighties, sometimes from Europe, not just from the United States. and he's appalled by the venality, by the lack of virtue, by people's poor by the people's poor behavior. Not the lack of deference, but the fact that you know, the licentiousness has crept into the population. Whereas he believed that, you know, the moment you get rid of the licentious aristocracy, you know, British aristocracy, people will return to their morals. and then of course, I think we could all expect that that's a bit of was a bit of an unlikely thing to have happened. ⁓ although Lenin thought the same thing would happen in nineteen seventeen. So, you know, yeah. There's a bit of that. ⁓ But it's this and what's interesting is that Adams's great work, the name of which I'm forgetting, of course, in 178 that comes out in 1787, contemporary contemporary with the Constitution, and then the Federalist Papers, and which is initially considered sort of s you know, ⁓ a piece of support for the Constitution, because he's lamenting a lack of government in the American states. But it becomes clear pretty quickly that he's not arguing for the constitution. He's arguing still in an old fashioned Republican mindset of the mixed constitution, of the ⁓ the Montesquieu. He's still he's still trapped in Montesquieu. ⁓ you know, when we did the Douglas Adair episode, Adair criticizes Hamilton for never getting over or in some ways never really moving past Thucydides in how he conceived of class conflict. Adams never gets past Montesquieu. He doesn't realize, at least according to Wood, that the Constitution has changed the conversation. And that the Federalist papers are have moved past Montesquieu. Both you know, Jay Adams and and Madison are no longer limited by the preconceptions of the of the earlier era, which is why this is why Adams gets so much criticism. For being a an ⁓ for being a a ⁓ partisan of aristocracy. Because Adams views aristocracy as this sort of necessary bulwark against democracy. And he's still talking and thinking in that mindset. Whereas the constitution, even though there's an acknowledgement that there's like social betters, is not a ⁓ defined aristocracy in the way that Adams imagines there needs to be one. Which is again interesting for a guy who's a far a small farmer from Braintree, Massachusetts. Exactly. Exactly. It doesn't fit with his what you would think with his experiences. There's you'd be hard pressed to find a guy who's more appalled by the notion of aristocracy as John Adams. Right. ⁓ and yet the guy in some ways becomes one of the great partisans of the need for aristocracy. Right. That stability in a way that he saw. The virtue. Right. He saw virtue in the aristocracy that he didn't see in the people. Right. And ⁓ and so he ⁓ you know, and and the way that Wood spins Adams is that rather than in the pre-revolutionary period where everybody had their lock hat on, ⁓ it was how do we get the monarch. or the chief magistrate is it's the people in the air it's the people fighting against the the monarch and his courtiers in the aristocracy and that the people need to be free of that. Whereas Adams in the wake of that starts saying, No, you need a chief magistrate that s that adjudicates or arbitrates between the aristocracy and the democracy. And that's what he sees the chief magistrate's role. And that just and and you know, this just again, it it gives you an idea of how tumultuous the confederation period is. Where the the notion is you need a chief magistrate to sit between them. And he also, Adams, is arguing that one of the reasons you need a Senate or you need an upper house is a place to. Isolate the aristocrats. Yes. But the problem is with Adam's conception, if you need a place to isolate the aristocrats, you need to accept that there is this permanent class of aristocrats. Exactly. And the people are not gonna accept that. And not and Madison and Hamilton know that. Right. Right. It has to be representative. They're past the point. by the seventeen eighty seven that there can be an aristocracy. Right. The states aren't going to accept that. Right. And so Adams is out of touch at I mean, to be so in tune with what's going on toward the beginning of independence, to see that coming and then to be so out of touch by the writing of the Constitution is pretty amazing. Well, it just shows you how much the z you know Lack of a better word, the zeitgeist changed. Right. In 1776, ⁓ you know, even Thomas Paine is working in a sort of Lockean conception. You can see it through a Lockean lens, right? Right. Or if not, or or Harrington or Sydney, or who, you know, all of these radical Whigs. Right, you can see it through that lens. But all of a sudden, in the wake of that you get ⁓ a period, you know, not unlike the Commonwealth under cr you know, before Cromwell asserts order after the Civil War, if not anarchy. It looked like anarchy. Right. Especially to a man like Adams. Yeah. So ⁓ anyway, so I think that's just an intro in, but that just again, that that it accentuates the point of the radicalism. Mm-hmm. And ⁓ and so faced with these problems, Adams reverts in his political scientist mind, who Edward calls him the great political scientist of the revolution, of the revolutionary period, in his political science mind, he has to go back to the known, ⁓ Solutions. He has to see it through like a familiar framework. Much like Hamilton has to see class conflict through a familiar framework, according to Adair. Right. Right. but for Hamilton, the the the consequences of that will not become clear until the 1790s. Right. Of that of being stuck in that. ⁓ Whereas for Adams it becomes clear in the 1780s. And ⁓ although of course Adams will become president. So You know, so we shouldn't take it too far. Exactly. Whether that presidency to a point. Yeah, whether the presidency is whether his administration is a success or not is a very different question, but he he does become president. ⁓ one thing we talked about in the ⁓ is the real you know, we talked about in both the Balin and the Robbins work and the Adair work to a lesser extent, is the the connection to Britain. British thought. And one of the things that I mean I ⁓ that Both Balin acknowledges, but I think Wood is maybe more explicit about, or he's narrower in in what he what what he identifies, is that the the American revolutionaries in seventeen seventy six, with very few exceptions like Tom Payne. did not view themselves as or viewed themselves as consistent with the British tradition. Yes. Yes. Almost defending the British trad tradition against this tyrannical parliament that they saw. Right. And it's probably worth you know w what what do you think of that argument? I think the way that he I think the the biggest piece of that argument that he brings in is the way that they see virtual versus actual representation. And I think that this idea that in Britain you have virtual representation, where the British in Parliament they represent the common good. So anyone any of the MPs who come to Parliament, they are they are meant to represent the common good for every person. I mean you had areas and he brings this up and It's something I always like to tell my students. You have areas in Britain that have fallen into the sea that still send representatives to parliament, where you have somewhere like Manchester who sends none. Because the way that they see it is once those men are seated in parliament, they're working for all Britons. The problem with that is in the colonies, they see their representatives elected. They're not far removed from that practice. And so they want actual representation. And that's what they expect in parliament as well. So their experiences over the colonial era, they're getting closer to that electoral experience where the British are moving farther away from that electoral experience. And so it's those experiences in the colonies that are going to push them to become more democratic, even before they're thinking of being a democracy or independent or anything like that. And so I think that that that kind of tension between the virtual and actual representation does a good job of showing the kind of bringing this argument to life in a way. Yeah. So I I think I I buy into that. They're they see a British tradition, but they're looking at the ideology versus the way it actually functions and they're buying into that ideology. And they're saying parliament's not keeping up its end of the deal anymore. And so we have the right to create a new government because our government is not serving us. Now, at first, they're not pushing back against the monarchy itself. They're not pushing back against the king. They're pushing back against parliament. It's only when they've exhausted, you know, all of these options that they actually start to, you know, think about declaring their independence. But it is that British tradition that they that they know of, at least the ideology, if they've never lived under it, they know of that tradition and that's what they are defending. I think he does a good job laying out that argument. Yeah, he says that they they they can s they're they're cons they see themselves in the radical Whig or you know, the country party, the radical Whig tradition, which the Americans, because they just sort of sit there, in that kind of politically, they sort of assume that's representative of the entire Whig tradition. When Wood argues no, of course it's not. It's actually kind of the far. edge of the Whig tradition. ⁓ they just sort of they see the entire world through that through that tradition there on kind of the you know the the Harringtons, the Sydneys, you know, the the the that whole world. and in whereas of course you know whereas again the Whig Party is much broader than that in England itself or in Britain itself. And so when they see what The king appears to be doing, right? And you know, we can never, it's so hard to remember. Like, it could be a year between the king doing some action and you hearing about it in the colonies, right? We have to always keep that in mind. So the way that you're interpreting these things is very, it's going to be very bizarre compared to the way that we conceive of things. ⁓ but the ⁓ so they're seeing it through this, through this English wig lens. This country wig lands. Right. ⁓ but going back to in anyway, going back to your comment on the rotten boroughs, ⁓ you know, you're like there's places that have fallen into the sea that are still represented in Parliament. Manchester is not. Right. Right. Right. ⁓ did you did you ever watch Black Adder? I didn't. ⁓ it was a Rowan Atkinson ⁓ comedy to probably find it on YouTube or somewhere, ⁓ where he ⁓ One of the series is ⁓ the Napoleonic era, essentially. And ⁓ it's Black Adder the Third. And in he's he plays the butler to the Prince Regent. And there's a they're they're trying to take advantage of an of a new of a by-election ⁓ in order to ensure that the the prince regent's position in the civil list is maintained. And ⁓ it's the dunny on the walled by-election. And ⁓ for anybody who knows any dunny means toilet, a slang for toilet. And so it's the dunny on the walled by election. And apparently the only voters are like a narcoleptic cat. And when they announce the results, of course, it's like there's only there's only one registered voter in the entire ⁓ the entire district. And when they announce the voters, of course, like ⁓ the their opposition gets zero votes and they get thirty-seven thousand votes. Right. And people and and you know, when when they're asked about it, you know, because they d pretend it's like a modern election, right? When they're asked about it. Right. He says, Well, you know, you sir are in fact the only voter. In this by-election, how could you vote 37,000? Or, you know, c can you do you care to ⁓ explain this discrepancy? And he says, I'm just so enthusiastic about this representative. I've voted for them 37,000 times. ⁓ my yeah. But that kind of gets to the point of how corrupt the rotten borough parliament had become. And how can you how can you expect parliament to be this great popular bulwark against monarchy when you've got these rotten boroughs that were so susceptible to the king being able the king is and you know this is the thing is that the king is no longer ruling on his own right that that the re American revolutionaries will admit that like but they're he's ruling he's co-opted parliament Parliament is no longer an effective bulwark. Right. And so it is this and and which is essentially the same argument that the the left wing of right and left is silly at this time, but but maybe the left wing of the Whig party is arguing in England. Right. Right. So it's ⁓ not completely invented. It is they think they are making very British arguments against a very British problem. Right. ⁓ They're just going back so far and so far into this kind of radical, like you're talking about the radical Whig element, that this would never work in Britain. This isn't this the these ideas, even though they're British, would never work there. You need the Yeah, and I think Wood sort of kind of alludes to it. I don't know if he says it explicitly, but it's certainly implicit. Is this idea that like, listen, the Americans didn't realize how far on the fringe of Whig thought they were. Right. They assumed they were sort of in the center of it, but they were in fact on the fringe, if you take a look at kind of British Whig thought as a whole. And especially the way that it had changed from, let's say, 1700 to 1760 when it had very much moderated since the ⁓ you know, under the wall un especially in in the Walpole years. ⁓ but ⁓ anyway, it's a ⁓ Any other any other big thoughts? I mean, I think we you know, you ⁓ these are ideas that we've been talking about off and on for about six ep for about five episodes now. So to some extent we you know it kind of all blends together at a certain point. ⁓ especially Balin and Wood. Yeah, where where do you wanna go next? I guess I just wanna briefly, you know, we we've talked about most of the big ideas in here. We've talked about the way, you know, this this kind of the way creation and radicalism work together. You know, we've talked about it throughout. ⁓ one thing that I do like is he is from Rhode Island and he does bring up this Rhode Island example and Rhode Island is just such a interesting place that like a just a middling class. They make their money, you know, they're Their business, they are making their money in a way that is absolutely seen as self-interested, not part of this idea of the republic. And they are pushing for independence early. They are on the edge of all of this going on. And I I do love the way he brings like you can tell that he is he is attached to this state, that he he likes its history and he is attached to it. So I did want to bring that up briefly since he is from there. ⁓ because I think he does a really good job showing, okay. Even the colonies, which is part of the radicalism here. The colonies view themselves differently. They have different interests. And eventually the government is going to see itself as this kind of referee between these interests. Instead of working for the common good, they accept there is no common good. We're not all going to be the same. So we have these different interests in government, and we're going to be the government's going to be the referee between these interests. And so I think this is a good example of that. I think Rhode Island is probably one of his best examples in here of that radicalism. Well, it's certainly on the fringe, ⁓ you know, of the colonies and you know, and and is a colonies hate Rhode Island, man. I know. And they're such a they're such a troublemaker. They hate Rhode Island. That's so funny. Like because you and and for those who don't know, Rhode Island is sort of legendary for their paper money emissions. Right. And ⁓ you know, it's a ⁓ The they and and of course the way that the financial system worked in the colonies is that like different currencies all over the place and ⁓ Massachusetts especially would get really upset at Rhode Island because like Rhode Island would have this emission of paper money that would devalue everybody's money in Massachusetts like the next day. Yes. Yes, yes. And it really hurts those debtors that we're talking about. It really hurts those Or lenders, I should say, you know, who are lending in specie and then getting this paper money paid back that's inflated at ridiculous levels. And they're just there losing big time with the circulation of paper money. That's why they put an article in the constitution that say only Congress can render paper money. But even by or render ⁓ money, but even by the Civil War, we have a hundred different currencies. Wood talks about. you know, a hundred different currencies in circulation. It's just wild to think about how just unregulated all of that was. Exchange rates between the different states. It's just a mess. Yeah, well you And Rhode Island is part of this problem. And Rhode Island is the biggest part of the problem. Yes. Yes. Yes, yes. And and I think you gotta you gotta just you gotta admire that. I think on some level, you know. I don't care how, you know, you just hey so They bothered everybody. And I think Wood appreciates that. I think so. It comes across that he appreciates it. Like if you're gonna be a problem, be the biggest problem. Right. You know, if you're already gonna go there, just be the best at it. And they do, they excel. And I do think it is, you know, he has this fondness and it comes across even as he's talking about the problems they cause. It comes across. And so I also did want to mention that. ⁓ As part of this story. This is the thing that I think and and this comes through, not just in Rhode Island, but you know, the whole notion of the radicalism is that once like once Pandora's box is opened. You can't you can't put the lid back on. Right. Right? You just can't. There's no going back to the status quo ante. Right. There has to be, you know, and this is perhaps maybe the genius of the constitution is that it contains it. It's you know, Pandora's box, you cannot recover Pandora's box, but maybe there's new box. Right. But that has to look Wildly different because of groups like Rhode Island. The government, like, ⁓ they aren't going to just accept it. They've changed it. They have changed the conversation. Absolutely. ⁓ absolutely. That's where you need to talk. Like, that's where they talk about popular sovereignty. There's this argument about, you know, you're talking about the upper house and lower house in Congress, you're talking about the Senate being like, you know, Adams is talking about it as the aristocracy. And I think it's the founder James Wilson. I know it's Wilson and I think it's James Wilson who talks about popular sovereignty and the fact that the power is gonna be with the people. It's not gonna be with the Senate. It's not gonna be the with the house. You're electing those people, or at least electing those people who are gonna appoint those people. So the power with is with the people and that's one thing that has changed so radically that even the constitution is this bulwark against radicalism. cannot change. It's going to have to adapt. It's gonna have to accept that premise. Like that is the the very foundation now. Like you cannot argue that the power is is with the people. And so I th yeah, I think that that's that's part of it as well. Yeah, I I think it is James Wilson. And you know actually there's another guy you want to write that'd be another great history of the revolutionary period is Sir James Wilson. Yeah, because he's hated He's burned an effigy at one point. Yeah, he has kind of an unfortunate retirement too. I think he dies at Getter's prison, I think. I think so. I think so. He definitely dies in debt. Yeah. ⁓ it's a ⁓ but it's an it a Pennsylvania, like it just again, there's another because in Pennsylvania, you know, may maybe not through Maybe Wilson's the wrong guy to view I think it would be fun to to look at it through Wilson. But or maybe the revolution through Benjamin Rush. ⁓ yeah. You know. So what we're doing, if you're interested in in in the in the revolutionary period, ladies and gentlemen, graduate students who might be looking for a dissertation subject, we're just spitting them off here and you're not even, you know, you're not picking up picking up on it. Right. Exactly. What is the revel what what is it what does this period look like through Benjamin Rush? What does it look like through James Wilson? ⁓ Pennsylvania is an interesting ⁓ I know there is a guy who just did a great biography of James Wilson. ⁓ but ⁓ the ⁓ doing a fact there was a couple that have come out recently, but looking at it specifically like kind of what Wood or Adair or Balin did looking at the revolution, but kind of privileging a couple of lenses, like, you know, would be really useful. and ⁓ and you know, one that hasn't been done in a very long time, if you're a Southern historian, might be one of the South Carolinians or Georgians. Yes. Again, such a different perspective there. Like Pierce. What does it look like to be or Abraham Baldwin? You know, if you want like kind of a like kind of a more moderate figure from the South, Abraham Baldwin would be a really good one. He ⁓ you know, I used to walk under Abraham Baldwin's statue every day at the University of Georgia. Would be a and a really interesting subject. I don't know. Again, spitting spitting these ideas out there. ⁓ you know, Wood said that Balin gave him his idea for his dissertation because he couldn't decide. And and Balin told him, You look at the state constitutions during this era. The state constitutions haven't been studied yet. And so that's where he would starts with that. Like Balin started with the pamphlets. Wood starts with these state constitutions and that's where he sees this radicalism and this ideology developing. So Maureen, where did you get your idea for your dissertation from? ⁓ well, I always thought always political history. I always went that direction. And when I was in my master's program, I really like this book that my advisor wrote, Black Struggle Red Scare. Jeff Woods was my advisor. And it talked about how the Red Scare influenced civil rights in the South. You know, civil rights leaders become communist, according to civil rights opponents. And I was really interested in that. And he told me that there was a man that had not been studied that was a really important part of the Central High story, which is a flashpoin in this in his telling of this struggle. And ⁓ his name was Jim Johnson. I started looking into him and was fascinated by his life. And so that's when I kind of yeah, I I tied my horse to Jim Johnson's wagon and have been going ever since. So, you know, a pretty extended and and no one in Arkansas had written a biography on this man because he was a rabid racist and his family is still alive and in our state legislature today. And so it's kind of a a touchy topic, but he called himself a white supremacist and he used those words about himself. And I'm just I'm just fascinated by his influence on Arkansas politics. So long story short, there, from my thesis advisor in my master's program. And I actually went on to my PhD at the University of Arkansas and w worked under his father, Randall Woods. So I got both Wood's son and father's influence on my work. Which has been just phenomenal. Actually, before I forget, for those of you who are looking on video, I just got this dissertation mailed to me, or like through interlibrary loan, from the University of Arkansas. Copy. And one of the thesis advisors on this, it turns out, is Randall Woods. ⁓ which what book is it? It is United States Agricultural Trade and Development Policy during World War Two. The role of the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations, and it's by Burton Henningston. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So ⁓ anyway, so as I was reading through the ⁓ the acknowledgments here, I was like, ⁓ Randall Woods. Yeah. It was 1982, something like that. and ⁓ Burt Henningston, the guy who wrote that, and has a fascinating history ⁓ in the in in ⁓ Minnesota, actually Minnesota ⁓ politics and trade. ⁓ but ⁓ sorry, maybe North Dakota. North Dakota, Minnesota. ⁓ no, I'm gonna get in trouble. ⁓ but such was life. Anyway, ⁓ it's a but yeah, I think that's you know, when you when you when I think when you come to grad school, you know, some people know what they're gonna do from their masters, right? They never deviate from it, but ⁓ I deviated significantly. I came in with one idea, then I went in a completely different direction, then I kind of went back kind of towards the first idea, but still from a different perspective. And ⁓ you know, there's no substitute for looking at sources. Not at all. That's where you start. Yeah. That's where you start. I know my mas those questions. My master's thesis, my advisor, I I was really lost at C trying to figure out what I was gonna write. And she said, Here's a bunch of microfilm. Look at that. Yeah. Come back to me and come back to me in three weeks after looking at all that microfilm. And yeah. Absolutely. Yes. If I haven't if I hadn't already dug into the Central Hike crisis and had known so much about that, I Johnson wouldn't have been important to me. If I hadn't already looked at those sources and had picked out his name every now and then, he just, you know, I would have thought, ⁓ let's look at someone else. Sure. Sure. So yeah, I mean, I think that's this ⁓ you know, if you're interested in the founding, if you're interested in the founding era, you know, there are founding fathers who have not been studied, who have papers. Yes. Absolutely. You know, people from states that maybe are not not at the forefront. And I think that would give you a really interesting or at least if they have been studied, probably there isn't a dissertation out there since the thirties or forties. Right. Right. I think too often people think everything that could be written about the founding has been written. And it hasn't been. No. Not at all. Not close. So yes, graduate students. Yeah. I mean, we we we've sort of emphasized the Republican synthesis here in this ⁓ in this sort of series on America 250. ⁓ but there are other ways of looking at this. You know, we talked about beard. There are, you know, for people who are interested, I I don't think beards maybe as played out as the Republican synthesis thinks it is, thinks he is. Right. you know, it's a there there is ⁓ there might be more there that has been missed. Right. For you know, ⁓ so we come to the end of this America two fifty series, Marie, and and what are what are some of your overarching thoughts on the historiography? Well, I think we chose some really good books. So I think we gave ourselves, you know, s self-selecting here. So we kind of have this arch and how the historiography has changed over time. And some of that is sources. Some of that is Balin and Wood have access to different sources than than Beard did. They're looking at different elements than Beard did, you know, not looking about how their ideas may connect in any way. They're looking at how their ideas diverge there. But but kind of looking at this transition over time through the historiography and seeing it in order as well has been really important here. so I I think the the thing that I got most out of it is that it is radical. It is, even though there's not, you know, heads don't roll here, there's not widespread bloodshed. I mean, the war happens, of course, but this isn't the French Revolution, this isn't the Haitian Revolution. This is different. This is more ideological. And through all the historiography that shows the not necessarily the radicalism, like Beard's not arguing that, but the the changes in the ideology show throughout these books over time. And I think you're right that some of it is the perspective of the founders they focus on. You know, you can kind of pick and choose which perspective to use depending on your own thoughts there. Because you can find these arguments amongst all the founders. And we look at different founders, like you were talking about at the beginning of the show. Who does each author focus on? They're different. They're different here. So we see their perspectives as the histor historiography goes through as well. Yeah. ⁓ and and who people choose tells you a lot. Right. You know, it's not a surprise that the New Englander chose Adams. Right. Right. Or that the guy from ⁓ the guy who went to school at Stavani chose Madison. Right. ⁓ it's a ⁓ yeah, I mean I I think that's I think your your point's still well taken. It you really do just appreciate that ⁓ you come to it and it's pretty clear there's pretty considerable discontinuity. Right. ⁓ with the revolution. And I'm continue to be amazed. Obviously, you know, we we haven't talked as much about the the f the great failure of the constitutional period which is slavery. Slavery remains right we haven't excluded that I mean I I you know for any reason other than like there's just so much else to talk about. And ⁓ you know we are going to come back with a major book on slavery, ⁓ in in a month's time ⁓ after this hiatus. And so w that is at the forefront of our minds. And even though that's not discussed maybe as much as we probably as maybe we could have, ⁓ that's just because it's ⁓ we got this maybe we got the I don't know whatever things. Well, I think that these I mean they don't talk about it in these books. And we're having a seminar discussion on these books. Not that that we shouldn't talk about it. We've mentioned it throughout during these works, but focusing, I mean, that's part of the critique of these works. Yeah. Is that they don't talk about slavery. They don't talk about, you know, the the continuity that we do see. And they're talking about the changes. And so as we continue on, you know, when we talk about Roll Jordan role, the we're we're diving into it. Yeah. Very soon. We're diving into it. ⁓ and I there But it is clear to me that when you when you take it on the I I think this is where we ended up, why we didn't maybe talk as much about slavery. Maybe they don't talk about it in the books as much as as maybe they should have. We're trying to take the crises on the terms that the founders saw the crises. Right. And like it or not, in 1780s, well, while there are huge cries for abolition, and there are, ⁓ there's a recent biography of Governor Morris that came out that emphasizes Governor Morris's abolitionism. ⁓ and you know, he's a major voice at the con ⁓ at the Congress ⁓ in ⁓ Philadelphia. But in the 1780s, slavery is still ubiquitous around the world, whether in the British Empire, ⁓ you know, across the Arab world, ⁓ the French Empire, ⁓ the great shot against slavery, the true shot the Haitian Revolution launches, is several. still a decade and a half away from this period that we're discussing. ⁓ while there are many abolitionists at the Continental Congress and black people will vote and the con the constitutional whatnot, it's not it's not the crisis on the they they aren't acknowledging the crisis in the same way. And I think the historiography is trying to figure out in in the terms of the people who were who were dealing with it. Right. I think that's right. But that is always the problem when you're doing an elite driven political history. Right. Right. And and there are books that have spun off of these works that do cover these, you know, those those issues. So they inspired other historians to focus on this through the lens of disenf you know, potentially disenfranchised ⁓ peoples as well. Yeah. It's always ⁓ you know, I mean it's a balancing act. It's a professional balancing act. And I think when you come to graduate school, at least I did, I sort of assumed like you could you can do it all. Right. And ⁓ you know, having written a dissertation now, a couple of articles, it's it's ⁓ been working on my book. Space constraints. Yeah. You know, it's You can't write everything. Eighty five thousand words isn't that many words. Right. And ⁓ you know, or a hundred thousand words or whatever it is, not that many words. And you have to prioritize the story that you're gonna tell. And you know, we're gonna talk about this with Roll Jordan Rule. ⁓ you've got to pick sources. Right? You have to pick sources and the sources that you choose will inevitably be privileged. And the reason you have to pick sources is that you I don't care what subject you are talking about, you will ne the the sources are unlimited. Unless you're doing like ancient history where there's like three acknowledged steleies that discuss its event and everybody's been looking at these same three steleies for two hundred and fifty years and trying to pick parse them, like the sources are gonna be unlimited. And eventually you're gonna have to say, Okay, there's that's enough sources to tell the story I need to tell. Right. Right. And you push some of those sources off to the second book. And you write the second and the third book. And so sometimes it works out, but you're absolutely right. You gotta pick and choose. It's just the nature of the game here. Yeah. And the the book, ⁓ but I anyway, I just came across you know, really impressed with the historiography. It's really, really impressive. It's and ⁓ perhaps with a with an increased appreciation for the constitution. Yeah. And a revelation I agree. It was the perfect it was the perfect pairing with the two fiftieth. It it did. It made me appreciate it in a way that I probably wouldn't have if we hadn't done this series. So I'm glad this was our this was our month of ⁓ you know, parti part of June and July. Yeah. All right. Well, Marie, we're gonna go on hiatus here for a few weeks. We're gonna come back with ⁓ certainly with Roll Jordan Roll and hopefully with another special episode here ⁓ pretty soon. Yes. Yes, that sounds great. Okay, Marie. Take care. Have a good rest of your summer. You too. Bye.