Over the course of the last centuries, there has been a large debate regarding the American Revolution. Many historians have adopted different interpretations of events and their significance. From this, many interpretations were born, with historians such as Gordon S. Wood and Daniel J. Boorstin each taking their own historiographical viewpoint of the events. From their analysis of the war and the influence of their own social and political climate, the ideologies of consensus and neo-Whig rose to popularity once again. The contracting viewpoints of these two historians, Wood and Boorstin summarize the continuing debate of whether the American Revolution was an act of radicalism or not.

One of the leading historians of this movement was Daniel J. Boorstin. Boorstin, publishing The Genius of American Politics ,published in the early 1950s focused on the idea that history is a continuum. Following World War Ⅱ, Consensus gained popularity. During these times, there was a great attempt at creating a sense of unity in the United States amongst civilians, as a means to create stability during high points of tension. For instance, the emergence of campaigns such as victory gardens, “Uncle Sam”, and anti-communism reflected the importance of American values at the time of Boorstin’s writing. He argues throughout his writings that though historians force an image of the colonists proposing extremely radical ideas and actions–it is actually nothing of the sort. Rather, he claims that in reality they were just defending old English beliefs. 

Gordon S. Wood’s book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution rebuttals the ideas of Boorstin. Wood, both a writer and a professor, argues that the revolution was indeed a radical movement within American history. Rather than painting the revolution’s success as a result of class struggle, he states that it was more so a transformation of the government that resulted in the direct changes seen following the end of the revolutionary war. Efforts of the war such as the destruction of the monarch and tax reform are declared to be some of the most crucial in the change of society. Moreover, he places an emphasis on the connection between the government and society, giving explanation to the heightened legality and structure of the American Revolution compared to other examples of revolutions in history. He states, “But in America, no more than in France, that was not the way it happened: the American Revolution and the social transformation of America between 1760 and the early years of the nineteenth century were inextricably bound together.” . Wood goes on to credit the war for shaping the entirety of all aspects of life in the later part of the 19th century. 

While Boorstin and Wood have differing opinions on whether the actions of the colonists were radical, they both discuss the strides society and academia took to make the colonial rebellion fit the parameters of what they consider to be a revolution. Boorstin highlights the differences between the various revolutionary movements throughout history, presenting the reasons why America found such great success particularly in their one attempt at a rebellion. He states that due to uncommon factors such as a similar terrain and lack of racial inferiority the colonies had an advantage.For this reason, he argues that the American Revolution was an anomaly compared to other rebellions.  Wood mentions a similar point–discussing the differences of approach within the revolutions commonly referred to in history. He compares that unlike the French Revolution, there were no extreme accounts of violence or radicalism. In his writings he states “They did not kill one another; they did not devour themselves. There was no reign of terror in the American Revolution and no resultant dictator—no Cromwell, no Bonaparte.” Furthermore, he argued that many historians still try to put together this narrative of recurring events. Such as comparing the French Revolution to the Colonial one despite their vast differences. However, more importantly, he emphasizes the similarities of their purpose and outcome. 

Overall, it can be concluded that Boorstin and Wood have differing views on the American Revolution, credited to the social and political climate at the time of their publishing. Boorstin, a consensus historian chose to paint the idea of colonial unity and the defense of tradition values, resembling the motive of campaigns in America during the aftermath of World War Ⅱ. On the other hand, Wood chooses to look at social issues through the lens of the government. He prioritizes the study of social movements and their long-term effects that transformed an old English society into a new radical one. Despite this, both viewpoints serve as a crucial source in the argument of the presence of colonial radicalism or lack thereof.

Bibliography

Boorstin, Daniel J. The Genius of American Politics. Chicago, Illinois : Univ. of Chicago Press, 1953.

Wood, Gordon S. The radicalism of the American Revolution. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf , 1993.