What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution
To the original text of what has become a classic of American historical literature, Bernard Bailyn adds a substantial essay, "Fulfillment," as a Postscript. Here he discusses the intense, nation-wide debate on the ratification of the Constitution, stressing the continuities between that struggle over the foundations of the national government and the original principles of the Revolution. This detailed study of the persistence of the nation's ideological origins adds a new dimension to the book and projects its meaning forward into vital current concerns.
396 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1967
About the author
Bernard Bailyn
108 books135 followersBernard Bailyn is an American historian, author, and professor specializing in U.S. Colonial and Revolutionary-era History. He has been a professor at Harvard since 1953. Bailyn has won the Pulitzer Prize for History twice (in 1968 and 1987). In 1998 the National Endowment for the Humanities selected him for the Jefferson Lecture, the U.S. federal government's highest honor for achievement in the humanities.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 157 reviews
September 25, 2012
The road to the writing of this Pulitzer Prize winning book began when Bailyn was asked to prepare a collection of pamphlets of the American Revolutionary War era. In doing so he began to see connections, common sources, and particularly how the American colonial experience transformed a strand of British libertarian opposition thought into a uniquely American ideology that caused an intellectual revolution as to the basis for sovereignty, rights and representation and consent that led not only to the colonies declaring independence but shaped our constitution and led to the undermining of slavery, the disestablishment of religion and an entirely new and radical social relationship.
I have my doubts that a general readership would find this book interesting: although I sure did. But for someone who has enough interest in American political thought this is illuminating. I have to concur with the New York Times reviewer who said that one "cannot claim to understand the American Revolution without reading this book." Or at least, it would be much harder: you'd have to undertake the same study Bailyn did and read thousands of 18th century pamphlets--which would be formidable enough.
The book is logically organized and lucidly written and I found that even for someone like myself who thought I knew a lot about the founding, who has read Thomas Paine's Common Sense and Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and Hamilton, Madison and Jay's Federalist Papers there are some surprises. I took for granted the influence of Enlightenment thinkers such as Locke, it's not really surprising to learn that a tradition of covenant theology was one strand of thinking nor classical Latin works of or about the Roman republic such as by Cicero, Livy and Tacitus. It was a bit surprising to learn the British common law tradition had a large part in this political thinking--but particularly surprising was learning the role of relatively obscure opposition Whig writers. And Bailyn also examines how the practical experience of colonial government, from charters to town halls to provincial legislatures shaped the way the founders saw and used this legacy to create a new kind of government. If you want to go deeper into the foundation of American political thought, I'd say this book is invaluable.
I have my doubts that a general readership would find this book interesting: although I sure did. But for someone who has enough interest in American political thought this is illuminating. I have to concur with the New York Times reviewer who said that one "cannot claim to understand the American Revolution without reading this book." Or at least, it would be much harder: you'd have to undertake the same study Bailyn did and read thousands of 18th century pamphlets--which would be formidable enough.
The book is logically organized and lucidly written and I found that even for someone like myself who thought I knew a lot about the founding, who has read Thomas Paine's Common Sense and Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and Hamilton, Madison and Jay's Federalist Papers there are some surprises. I took for granted the influence of Enlightenment thinkers such as Locke, it's not really surprising to learn that a tradition of covenant theology was one strand of thinking nor classical Latin works of or about the Roman republic such as by Cicero, Livy and Tacitus. It was a bit surprising to learn the British common law tradition had a large part in this political thinking--but particularly surprising was learning the role of relatively obscure opposition Whig writers. And Bailyn also examines how the practical experience of colonial government, from charters to town halls to provincial legislatures shaped the way the founders saw and used this legacy to create a new kind of government. If you want to go deeper into the foundation of American political thought, I'd say this book is invaluable.
July 21, 2025
The Power Of Ideas In Forming America
Why did the American colonies declare their Independence from Great Britain?Bernard Bailyn's classic study, "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" argues that American Independence had its roots in the power of ideas -- of a rethinking of the proper role of government and a willingness to put thought into action with what became the uniquely American combination of idealism and realism. Bailyn's approach rejects certain types of other plausible explanations of the Revolution -- such as economic rivalry with the mother country or personal ambition on the part of colonial leaders --to tell his story of the origins of American ideas.
Bailyn finds the ideas that shaped the Revolution stated and debated in the ubiquitous pamphlets that appeared in the colonies between, about, 1760 -- 1776. But the source of the ideas are much deeper. Bailyn traces these ideas to the ancient Roman orators, through philosophical figures such as Locke and Vattel. The immediate source of the ideas which became America was in dissenting political thought in Great Britain in the later Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Century following the Glorious Revolution. The concern was political corruption in the Britain of the time and the fear that the monarchy would reassert its dominance over British life. Early in the 18th century, well before the French-Indian War, these concerns found their way to the American colonies and prepared the intellectual groundwork for independence. The colonists had a real fear that what they perceived as arbitrary British actions would reduce them to slavery or vassalage.
Bailyn discusses in detail how the colonists took English political thought and applied it to the nature of representative government, constitutional thought, and the nature of divided sovereignty. He then explains how the manner in which the colonists transformed thinking about the nature of government had ramifications in the colonists' view of slavery, the disestablishment of religion, a classless society, and the nature of democracy. The intellectual transformation required for an independent United States thus occurred well before the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers.
Bailyn's book is a work of detailed scholarship and not easy to read. It is a major achievement of intellectual history and will more than repay the effort. John Adams is among the major heroes of this book. Readers that want to follow-up McCollough's popular biography and learn about the ideas of the time might well explore this book. Bailyn's study affirms the power of thought and of the American experiment. In our troubled times, it may help take us back to the origins of our country to learn where we have been so that we may intelligently decide where we are going.
Robin Friedman
Why did the American colonies declare their Independence from Great Britain?Bernard Bailyn's classic study, "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" argues that American Independence had its roots in the power of ideas -- of a rethinking of the proper role of government and a willingness to put thought into action with what became the uniquely American combination of idealism and realism. Bailyn's approach rejects certain types of other plausible explanations of the Revolution -- such as economic rivalry with the mother country or personal ambition on the part of colonial leaders --to tell his story of the origins of American ideas.
Bailyn finds the ideas that shaped the Revolution stated and debated in the ubiquitous pamphlets that appeared in the colonies between, about, 1760 -- 1776. But the source of the ideas are much deeper. Bailyn traces these ideas to the ancient Roman orators, through philosophical figures such as Locke and Vattel. The immediate source of the ideas which became America was in dissenting political thought in Great Britain in the later Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Century following the Glorious Revolution. The concern was political corruption in the Britain of the time and the fear that the monarchy would reassert its dominance over British life. Early in the 18th century, well before the French-Indian War, these concerns found their way to the American colonies and prepared the intellectual groundwork for independence. The colonists had a real fear that what they perceived as arbitrary British actions would reduce them to slavery or vassalage.
Bailyn discusses in detail how the colonists took English political thought and applied it to the nature of representative government, constitutional thought, and the nature of divided sovereignty. He then explains how the manner in which the colonists transformed thinking about the nature of government had ramifications in the colonists' view of slavery, the disestablishment of religion, a classless society, and the nature of democracy. The intellectual transformation required for an independent United States thus occurred well before the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers.
Bailyn's book is a work of detailed scholarship and not easy to read. It is a major achievement of intellectual history and will more than repay the effort. John Adams is among the major heroes of this book. Readers that want to follow-up McCollough's popular biography and learn about the ideas of the time might well explore this book. Bailyn's study affirms the power of thought and of the American experiment. In our troubled times, it may help take us back to the origins of our country to learn where we have been so that we may intelligently decide where we are going.
Robin Friedman
Want to Read
August 9, 2020The author has died a month before his 97th birthday.
This book was required reading in my American History course in college. It was a darn good read.
This book was required reading in my American History course in college. It was a darn good read.
May 2, 2021
There are a few things Bailyn does really well here:
1. He writes with structure.
There is a clear and cogent outline. You can almost see the outline as you read from paragraph to paragraph. This makes the dense topic easy to follow.
2. He recaps his main points.
He will string together a series of points and arguments and explanations, and then he will write a summarizing paragraph that restates each of them. He does this frequently. It both crystallizes the thoughts and makes following the course of thinking quite navigable.
3. He deftly weaves in source material.
The subject requires heavy use of quotes—we want to read the words of the men themselves. But too often I've read authors who stitch together quotes without offering any insight, analysis, clarification, or explanation and it ends up reading like a poorly done high school book report (e.g. He said, '.....' And then He added, '.....' This was countered by Smith who said, '.....'). Bailyn is seamless. His synthesis of the material transforms what would be a dull patchwork quilt into a brilliant tapestry.
The lasting impression I was left with was that of Bailyn's authority. He knows this stuff and he communicates it effectively. Good read.
1. He writes with structure.
There is a clear and cogent outline. You can almost see the outline as you read from paragraph to paragraph. This makes the dense topic easy to follow.
2. He recaps his main points.
He will string together a series of points and arguments and explanations, and then he will write a summarizing paragraph that restates each of them. He does this frequently. It both crystallizes the thoughts and makes following the course of thinking quite navigable.
3. He deftly weaves in source material.
The subject requires heavy use of quotes—we want to read the words of the men themselves. But too often I've read authors who stitch together quotes without offering any insight, analysis, clarification, or explanation and it ends up reading like a poorly done high school book report (e.g. He said, '.....' And then He added, '.....' This was countered by Smith who said, '.....'). Bailyn is seamless. His synthesis of the material transforms what would be a dull patchwork quilt into a brilliant tapestry.
The lasting impression I was left with was that of Bailyn's authority. He knows this stuff and he communicates it effectively. Good read.
September 21, 2010
This text is simply one of the greatest accomplishments of Bernard Bailyn's career. Bailyn has been synonymous with editing primary source documents from the American Revolution, but "Ideological Origins," marks one time where he takes his expertise on the subject of the Revolution and applies it to a more narrative text. Keep in mind, being a historical text, this is not a narrative in the typical sense, but it does take historical events, which in many cases are uninteresting, and meshes them together to form a coherent, interesting, and factually correct story.
As a writer, and especially one who writes about historical events, I am always looking for new ways to deliver my writing. While McCullough was truly groundbreaking, Bernard Bailyn's brilliance in drawing connections between seemingly unrelated categories (women, slavery, economics), shows readers a side of the American Revolution they had not previously known. When the studies for my Honors in the Major course began, I was nervous and scared to connect two seemingly unrelated events. After reading "Ideological Origins," however, I found myself comfortable drawing some conclusions I would have previously thought to be sweeping.
In his writing, Bailyn stresses the academic dimension of history. McCullough stresses the narrative being told throughout his texts. Ellis reflects facts in a way that demands the reader's undivided attention. The difference between Bailyn, McCullough, and Ellis is the way Bailyn is able to explicitly note assumptions he carries throughout his texts. As a Harvard Professor, Bailyn has great leverage in making assumptions. With this leverage, we see great deference shown by both McCullough and Ellis to Bailyn, citing his works frequently, while also adopting many of his beliefs.
As a writer, and especially one who writes about historical events, I am always looking for new ways to deliver my writing. While McCullough was truly groundbreaking, Bernard Bailyn's brilliance in drawing connections between seemingly unrelated categories (women, slavery, economics), shows readers a side of the American Revolution they had not previously known. When the studies for my Honors in the Major course began, I was nervous and scared to connect two seemingly unrelated events. After reading "Ideological Origins," however, I found myself comfortable drawing some conclusions I would have previously thought to be sweeping.
In his writing, Bailyn stresses the academic dimension of history. McCullough stresses the narrative being told throughout his texts. Ellis reflects facts in a way that demands the reader's undivided attention. The difference between Bailyn, McCullough, and Ellis is the way Bailyn is able to explicitly note assumptions he carries throughout his texts. As a Harvard Professor, Bailyn has great leverage in making assumptions. With this leverage, we see great deference shown by both McCullough and Ellis to Bailyn, citing his works frequently, while also adopting many of his beliefs.
April 6, 2025
Read for school
January 21, 2019
A thoughtful and insightful review of pre- and post-revolution literature to discern the ideologies underlying the revolution. The book started with a cataloging of pamphlets, broadsides and newspapers of the era. This major effort is a very well documented explanation of the arguments pro and con of an almost exhaustible list of topics. Much of the book is from quotations of the sources examined and the footnotes are voluminous and detailed. He examines the theories of governance, religion, economics, trade, and topics like slavery, royalty and the duty of man to God (as it relates to living in a commonly governed community). For anyone who has studied American history there is not much new here in terms of the substantive arguments; however, the close and tight analysis of the extant literature was a phenomenal effort, deserving of respect, admiration and utmost credibility of its intellectual (and actual) honesty.
This book is still very relevant as it touches on topics of governance which will always be pertinent. Many of the ideas and topics deserve more study and discussion now. Ideas such as term limits, responsiveness to the common good, preference to those with great wealth, and the privileges of the "nobility" are all relevant today as they were in the 1700's and indeed in ancient times.
Many references to early writers on government are mostly lost on us except for the pure academics of today. A reminder that we need to hear from upper level professors and heed them more than have in recent generations (IMHO).
This book is still very relevant as it touches on topics of governance which will always be pertinent. Many of the ideas and topics deserve more study and discussion now. Ideas such as term limits, responsiveness to the common good, preference to those with great wealth, and the privileges of the "nobility" are all relevant today as they were in the 1700's and indeed in ancient times.
Many references to early writers on government are mostly lost on us except for the pure academics of today. A reminder that we need to hear from upper level professors and heed them more than have in recent generations (IMHO).
December 2, 2009
One of the few best books I have ever read, and one of the few most influential in my life. That's hardly a reason for anyone else to read it. I can only say that everything I ever wanted to believe about the development of the Founders' political philosophy - about the nature of liberty, sovereignty and consent - is all supported in this book. The book can't and isn't meant to adequately grapple with the stain of slavery and its shocking existence side-by-side with high-minded declarations of liberty. For what the book does intend to grapple with, it's simply the best.
January 11, 2021
This classic work provides a history of ideas from the Revolutionary generation. The larger considerations of the departure from the old European regimes and improvements to the English constitution are covered by Bailyn. He also goes into the contradiction between pursuing liberty and keeping slavery as an institution. His approach may be considered mild in the 21st century, but I appreciate why it is such an important book for understanding the intellectual initiatives, dilemmas, and arguments of the time.
Read
September 29, 2015Classic study of the ideology of the Revolution.
September 8, 2010
The corpus of the book is set on informing the reader that there were plenty of other writers who were active during the revolutionary period (1760-1774). Most know the influence of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Paine, etc.; however, others published their sermons, rants, commentaries, and analyses that continued the revolutionary theme that many of the known writers were artfully addressing. Bailyn notes that these writers, while prolific, lacked tact and artful argumentation, therefore, their writings were relegated to the unforgotten stacks of revolutionary literature. Unfortunately, as Bailyn attempts to shine the light on these crude, yet insightful writers, he continues to trumpet the major thinkers of the day -- seeing to it that the heralded writers of the Revolution remain so. Nonetheless, the work is a valued addition to gaining a full understanding of the issues behind the American Revolution.
Want to Read
October 17, 2015I'm mostly interested into what extent are these ideologies are replicated in today's political spectrum, all in my quest to understand those strange people on the other side of the political divide and the even stranger things that they think. I heard about this book via the JuntoCast podcast:
The JuntoCast, Episode 12
(iTunes).
July 9, 2007
It is the book that made me love history. I return to it every year or two to remind myself that not all history must be badly written and that there exist beautiful and big things in one digestable package.
December 29, 2010
If you're a true history buff, you have read this book. Not exactly an easy read, but well worth it in the end. I would not recommend it if you aren't truly very interested in the early history of the USA.
June 29, 2022
Summary: A study of the ideas conveyed through pamphlets that led to the revolution of the colonies against England.
The original edition of this work, published in 1967, won both Pulitzer and Bancroft Prizes for Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn. What Bailyn does is to study the literature that preceded the revolution, much of it in pamphlets ranging from the more religiously based ones of Jonathan Mayhew to the more radical Thomas Paine. He identifies key themes that led to conflict and the Declaration of Independence.
Much of this was rooted in British pamphleteers including John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, who protested what they saw as corruption in which royal ministers usurped the power of parliament. It was framed as a conflict of power versus liberty. The colonists began to seem themselves caught up in this conspiracy of power versus liberty, exemplified when the British quartered troops in Boston. Indeed, this conspiracy thinking, mirrored by the British acquired a kind of inevitability that led ineluctably to conflict. In one of his most sobering passages for our present moment, Bailyn writes:
“But the eighteenth century was an age of ideology; the beliefs and fears expressed on one side of the Revolutionary controversy were as sincere as those expressed on the other. The result, anticipated by Burke as early as 1769, was an ‘escalation’ of distrust toward a disastrous deadlock: ‘The Americans,’ Burke said, ‘have made a discovery, or think they have made one, that we mean to oppress them: we have made a discovery, or think we have made one, that they intend to rise in rebellion against us. . . we know not how to advance; they know not how to retreat. . . Some party must give way.’ “
The colonists took this basic opposition of liberty to power and transformed it to fit their context. Their cry of “taxation without representation” was a protest against the purported virtual representation they received in Parliament, in which measures could be decided in which they had no voice. Likewise, they challenged the abstract constitution of sovereign and Parliament, contending for a written constitution that clearly set the boundaries of government. Finally, in a colonial situation far removed from Parliament, they challenged its absolute authority, especially in matters of “internal” versus “external” taxes.
Bailyn then concludes with showing how this “contagion of liberty” spread to concerns about slavery, religious liberty, and the shape of their government, the idea of a democratic republic–one with no sovereign. Bailyn discusses the early deliberations including the fears that democracy could easily degenerate into anarchy, the developments of the ideas of bicameral legislatures, an executive, and of independent courts–designed to protect against both autocrats and anarchy.
Bailyn helps us understand not only the ideas that led to revolution but that led to how we constituted the United States, and the concern to uphold liberty against both absolute power and absolute disorder. It seems to me that what the early thinkers failed to anticipate was the partisan abyss that has developed that exacerbates the inefficiencies of a democratic republic resulting in a descent into disorder matched by the appeal of an authoritarian government that works. Ben Franklin, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention was asked, “What kind of government have you given us?” Franklin replied, “A democracy, if you can keep it.” The question of our day seems to be “will we keep it?” Bailyn’s book can’t answer that for us, but it does trace the ideological heritage that led to the inception of our democratic republic.
The original edition of this work, published in 1967, won both Pulitzer and Bancroft Prizes for Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn. What Bailyn does is to study the literature that preceded the revolution, much of it in pamphlets ranging from the more religiously based ones of Jonathan Mayhew to the more radical Thomas Paine. He identifies key themes that led to conflict and the Declaration of Independence.
Much of this was rooted in British pamphleteers including John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, who protested what they saw as corruption in which royal ministers usurped the power of parliament. It was framed as a conflict of power versus liberty. The colonists began to seem themselves caught up in this conspiracy of power versus liberty, exemplified when the British quartered troops in Boston. Indeed, this conspiracy thinking, mirrored by the British acquired a kind of inevitability that led ineluctably to conflict. In one of his most sobering passages for our present moment, Bailyn writes:
“But the eighteenth century was an age of ideology; the beliefs and fears expressed on one side of the Revolutionary controversy were as sincere as those expressed on the other. The result, anticipated by Burke as early as 1769, was an ‘escalation’ of distrust toward a disastrous deadlock: ‘The Americans,’ Burke said, ‘have made a discovery, or think they have made one, that we mean to oppress them: we have made a discovery, or think we have made one, that they intend to rise in rebellion against us. . . we know not how to advance; they know not how to retreat. . . Some party must give way.’ “
The colonists took this basic opposition of liberty to power and transformed it to fit their context. Their cry of “taxation without representation” was a protest against the purported virtual representation they received in Parliament, in which measures could be decided in which they had no voice. Likewise, they challenged the abstract constitution of sovereign and Parliament, contending for a written constitution that clearly set the boundaries of government. Finally, in a colonial situation far removed from Parliament, they challenged its absolute authority, especially in matters of “internal” versus “external” taxes.
Bailyn then concludes with showing how this “contagion of liberty” spread to concerns about slavery, religious liberty, and the shape of their government, the idea of a democratic republic–one with no sovereign. Bailyn discusses the early deliberations including the fears that democracy could easily degenerate into anarchy, the developments of the ideas of bicameral legislatures, an executive, and of independent courts–designed to protect against both autocrats and anarchy.
Bailyn helps us understand not only the ideas that led to revolution but that led to how we constituted the United States, and the concern to uphold liberty against both absolute power and absolute disorder. It seems to me that what the early thinkers failed to anticipate was the partisan abyss that has developed that exacerbates the inefficiencies of a democratic republic resulting in a descent into disorder matched by the appeal of an authoritarian government that works. Ben Franklin, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention was asked, “What kind of government have you given us?” Franklin replied, “A democracy, if you can keep it.” The question of our day seems to be “will we keep it?” Bailyn’s book can’t answer that for us, but it does trace the ideological heritage that led to the inception of our democratic republic.
November 25, 2019
I first read this exceptional piece of historical scholarship and literary merit 52 years ago -- in my first full year of teaching American history in college!
How fascinating to have read it again now after 30 years of public service, including 5 in a position with the Roman Catholic Church! In 1967 I was only 24 filled, to be sure, with a great deal of bookish knowledge -- as well as a sense that I was far more "mature" than I had been at 17 -- but lacking in much "real world" experience of the realities of power, corruption, deceit and greed.
These many years later I better understand how and why the Revolution occurred, while also more deeply appreciating how it was hardly "inevitable" which is probably how most Americans are likely to think of it today, to the extent that they think about those times at all.
Rather, since human nature does not change one twit over time -- even though each generation prides itself in being more "modern" and "up-to-date" than all preceding ones -- Bailyn's account shows us the same kind of behavior as we have all about us in today's world: taking our partial understanding as gospel "truth," filtering what we hear and see through that lens of partial understanding, gradually distancing ourselves from people with whom we once merely disagreed until we find ourselves at each other's throats, and the always-present tendency to see developments as part of some sort of "conspiracy."
Yep, that existed in the world of the Founders just as it does in our time of Trump and hyper-partisanship.
To the American colonists, every step Britain took after the successful conclusion of its latest war with France in 1763 -- which we remember as the French and Indian War -- to generate much needed revenue in order to both pay for the war and the increased costs of maintaining sufficient forces in America to protect its now expanded territorial possessions was interpreted, by the American colonists, as successively more grave instances of a cabal of the king's ministers who were intent upon imposing their will upon the colonists, all of the colonial petitions to the crown and Parliament notwithstanding.
From the British perspective, the refusal of the colonists to tolerate higher taxes was a sign of ingratitude to the mother country who, after all, had just gained more territory into which the colonists could eventually move without having to jostle with the feared French (and their poisonous Catholic religion). Her ministers in the colonies -- all of the colonial governors, for example, held their positions by grant of Britain's king -- were meanwhile assuring the king and Parliament that while the great majority of the colonists were loyal to the crown the problem was the presence of a few radical trouble-makers who seized every possible misstep by England as proof of evil intent.
It was only in the 1770s that both sides came to understand that their view that it was just "a few" on the other side responsible for the difficulties was badly mistaken -- for it turned out that not only was the king fully informed and supportive of the steps Parliament had been taking but also that the alarm and resentment toward England was shared by a wide swath of the colonists and not just by a few ringleaders.
Unfortunately, by then sides had hardened and the show and use of force -- by troops from England and by resistance from the armed colonists -- became almost inevitable.
What can a modern reader glean from this book?
Many things, I believe.
First, you will come to better understand and appreciate how the relationship between the English colonies and Great Britain unraveled relatively quickly: before 1763 relations were very cordial and the vast majority of colonists felt that they truly did enjoy all the rights of the subjects of England in their island homeland and yet, just scant years later, blood was spilled and the breech between them unrepairable. Since Bailyn's book is filled with excerpts from primary documents of all sorts -- diaries, letters, official acts, colonial petitions, and colonial newspapers, broadsheets, and pamphlets -- the reader gets to hear from persons involved during these years and to better understand how and why they felt the way they did.
Second, you will likely be fascinated by the mix of true radicals -- Independence now! -- and more conservative voices among the colonial leaders pleading for both time and prudence since, surely, reasonable people can work this out! It is fascinating to watch as those who would become the rebel leaders relied upon the same traditions, documents, and thinkers -- Locke, Hume, and Montesquieu, for instance -- as did their supporters and opponents in Parliament, yet came to different conclusions in so many cases.
Furthermore, although this is not part of Bailyn's book, you will come to better understand how these thoughts of the pre-Revolutionary years came to influence what eventually came to be the Constitution of the United States -- our second national government after the Confederation of 1781 (when the last state finally ratified it).
Thirdly, you may find, as I did, how the issues and debates of those years still speak to our own time. In particular, the deep revulsion they felt toward "factions" -- especially, "permanent" factions -- should resonate with us today as we see the sad consequences of the partisan, nay, tribal divisions now.
They deeply distrusted power because of its inevitably corrupting influences on all who wielded it. Their attitude reminds me of Lord Acton's famous saying, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Look at today's White House, the Congress, and so many state legislatures.
They distrusted entrenched positions, whether by heredity or wealth, that gave the few great power over the many. And, while they feared "the people's" tendency toward mob-think and their dangerous vulnerability to demagogues, they did not wish a government of minority rule.
Finally, their distrust of concentrated power -- especially in a monarch or single executive -- inclined them towards viewing legislative branches as the most trustworthy.
Highly recommended because anyone who reads this will learn some things that are vital to the ongoing survival of the United States. And the warning is clear: it is not enough to preserve institutions; we must also preserve the SPIRIT and IDEALS of liberty and justice for all!
How fascinating to have read it again now after 30 years of public service, including 5 in a position with the Roman Catholic Church! In 1967 I was only 24 filled, to be sure, with a great deal of bookish knowledge -- as well as a sense that I was far more "mature" than I had been at 17 -- but lacking in much "real world" experience of the realities of power, corruption, deceit and greed.
These many years later I better understand how and why the Revolution occurred, while also more deeply appreciating how it was hardly "inevitable" which is probably how most Americans are likely to think of it today, to the extent that they think about those times at all.
Rather, since human nature does not change one twit over time -- even though each generation prides itself in being more "modern" and "up-to-date" than all preceding ones -- Bailyn's account shows us the same kind of behavior as we have all about us in today's world: taking our partial understanding as gospel "truth," filtering what we hear and see through that lens of partial understanding, gradually distancing ourselves from people with whom we once merely disagreed until we find ourselves at each other's throats, and the always-present tendency to see developments as part of some sort of "conspiracy."
Yep, that existed in the world of the Founders just as it does in our time of Trump and hyper-partisanship.
To the American colonists, every step Britain took after the successful conclusion of its latest war with France in 1763 -- which we remember as the French and Indian War -- to generate much needed revenue in order to both pay for the war and the increased costs of maintaining sufficient forces in America to protect its now expanded territorial possessions was interpreted, by the American colonists, as successively more grave instances of a cabal of the king's ministers who were intent upon imposing their will upon the colonists, all of the colonial petitions to the crown and Parliament notwithstanding.
From the British perspective, the refusal of the colonists to tolerate higher taxes was a sign of ingratitude to the mother country who, after all, had just gained more territory into which the colonists could eventually move without having to jostle with the feared French (and their poisonous Catholic religion). Her ministers in the colonies -- all of the colonial governors, for example, held their positions by grant of Britain's king -- were meanwhile assuring the king and Parliament that while the great majority of the colonists were loyal to the crown the problem was the presence of a few radical trouble-makers who seized every possible misstep by England as proof of evil intent.
It was only in the 1770s that both sides came to understand that their view that it was just "a few" on the other side responsible for the difficulties was badly mistaken -- for it turned out that not only was the king fully informed and supportive of the steps Parliament had been taking but also that the alarm and resentment toward England was shared by a wide swath of the colonists and not just by a few ringleaders.
Unfortunately, by then sides had hardened and the show and use of force -- by troops from England and by resistance from the armed colonists -- became almost inevitable.
What can a modern reader glean from this book?
Many things, I believe.
First, you will come to better understand and appreciate how the relationship between the English colonies and Great Britain unraveled relatively quickly: before 1763 relations were very cordial and the vast majority of colonists felt that they truly did enjoy all the rights of the subjects of England in their island homeland and yet, just scant years later, blood was spilled and the breech between them unrepairable. Since Bailyn's book is filled with excerpts from primary documents of all sorts -- diaries, letters, official acts, colonial petitions, and colonial newspapers, broadsheets, and pamphlets -- the reader gets to hear from persons involved during these years and to better understand how and why they felt the way they did.
Second, you will likely be fascinated by the mix of true radicals -- Independence now! -- and more conservative voices among the colonial leaders pleading for both time and prudence since, surely, reasonable people can work this out! It is fascinating to watch as those who would become the rebel leaders relied upon the same traditions, documents, and thinkers -- Locke, Hume, and Montesquieu, for instance -- as did their supporters and opponents in Parliament, yet came to different conclusions in so many cases.
Furthermore, although this is not part of Bailyn's book, you will come to better understand how these thoughts of the pre-Revolutionary years came to influence what eventually came to be the Constitution of the United States -- our second national government after the Confederation of 1781 (when the last state finally ratified it).
Thirdly, you may find, as I did, how the issues and debates of those years still speak to our own time. In particular, the deep revulsion they felt toward "factions" -- especially, "permanent" factions -- should resonate with us today as we see the sad consequences of the partisan, nay, tribal divisions now.
They deeply distrusted power because of its inevitably corrupting influences on all who wielded it. Their attitude reminds me of Lord Acton's famous saying, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Look at today's White House, the Congress, and so many state legislatures.
They distrusted entrenched positions, whether by heredity or wealth, that gave the few great power over the many. And, while they feared "the people's" tendency toward mob-think and their dangerous vulnerability to demagogues, they did not wish a government of minority rule.
Finally, their distrust of concentrated power -- especially in a monarch or single executive -- inclined them towards viewing legislative branches as the most trustworthy.
Highly recommended because anyone who reads this will learn some things that are vital to the ongoing survival of the United States. And the warning is clear: it is not enough to preserve institutions; we must also preserve the SPIRIT and IDEALS of liberty and justice for all!
Read
April 15, 2026I’m not a historian so I don’t know how this stands in the world of historical writing as a whole, but I learned some things so I’d say it was good 😁
June 12, 2015
I read this just after finishing Wood's Radicalism of the American Revolution, which is much more engaging and expansive. Bailyn's book is a bit stuffier and the overall argument is harder to grasp, but it is still a worthwhile read for students of American history and the American Revolution as a whole.
Bailyn traces the ideological origins of the American Revolution to the Commonwealthmen/Whig philosophers of the late 17th and early-mid 18th century in Great Britain. These ideas provided the inspiration for the revolution but were also transformed by the revolution. The ideas of these figures shaped the lens through which the revolutionaries interpreted the post 1763 British expansion of power over the colonies. Whereas the British, and many today, might have seen only an incremental and thoroughly merited standardization of imperial rule and a modest increase in revenue gathering, the colonists saw a power grab by a corrupted British elite who would only continue to oppress if the colonists did not oppose them. They believed it was the nature of power to increase itself indefinitely and that power was always the enemy of liberty. To some extent their thinking could be called conspiratorial because they believed that British encroachments were bound to continue and that whatever the British were doing was only the tip of the iceberg. However, this kind of thinking made sense within the Whiggish worldview. Bailyn does a great job getting the reader into the mindsets of the people at the time. For example, it might seem outrageous today that the revolutionaries accused the British of wanting to reduce them to slavery, but according to their much more expansive definition of slavery (pretty much any situation where one person exhibits arbitrary power over another, this actually made sense at the time.
Bailyn shows how the revolution transformed the heritage of British political thought into a uniquely American creation. The British, for instance, conceived of representation as "virtual" rather than direct. This meant that the representatives of a particular area were not representing the interests of that area but of the nation as a whole. This meant that the British believed the Americans were being represented even if they had no direct representatives. By the 1760's the colonists were starting to reject this notion in favor of a representation that more openly sought out the best for its constituents while not being totally averse to the common good. The colonists also rethought rights. The British thought of rights as emanating from natural law and the common law but contended that they did not need to be enumerated to have effect. Again, the colonists revised this belief, arguing that rights existed above the law, that the purpose of the law and government is to serve those rights, and that those rights must be written down if they are to be protected. Bailyn is simply outstanding at explaining these kinds of intellectual transformations.
While the ideas is this book are interesting, it's somewhat hard to follow and large sections of it are quite dry. The most interesting sections are probably the first two sections of the "Contagion of Liberty" chapter. Bailyn explains how the ideas of the revolution, especially equality and rights, challenged many different normal structures in society, such as slavery or the establishment of a Church. The revolutionary period witnessed the first major push against slavery in American history and started a wave of agitation that eventually undid Northern slavery and the slave trade. Obviously it was difficult to justify the continuation of slavery in the era of liberty, freedom, and enlightenment, but slave-owners came up with weak defenses away. Bailyn's treatment of slavery is much better than Wood, so simply states that the principles of the revolution doomed slavery. Bailyn more subtly argues that the revolution put slaveholders on the defensive and for the first time compelled them to justify the holding of slaves in bondage. In this telling, slavery was not doomed by the revolution, but the way many Americans talked and thought about slavery changed in ways that opened up its eventual containment, mitigation, and elimination.
Bailyn traces the ideological origins of the American Revolution to the Commonwealthmen/Whig philosophers of the late 17th and early-mid 18th century in Great Britain. These ideas provided the inspiration for the revolution but were also transformed by the revolution. The ideas of these figures shaped the lens through which the revolutionaries interpreted the post 1763 British expansion of power over the colonies. Whereas the British, and many today, might have seen only an incremental and thoroughly merited standardization of imperial rule and a modest increase in revenue gathering, the colonists saw a power grab by a corrupted British elite who would only continue to oppress if the colonists did not oppose them. They believed it was the nature of power to increase itself indefinitely and that power was always the enemy of liberty. To some extent their thinking could be called conspiratorial because they believed that British encroachments were bound to continue and that whatever the British were doing was only the tip of the iceberg. However, this kind of thinking made sense within the Whiggish worldview. Bailyn does a great job getting the reader into the mindsets of the people at the time. For example, it might seem outrageous today that the revolutionaries accused the British of wanting to reduce them to slavery, but according to their much more expansive definition of slavery (pretty much any situation where one person exhibits arbitrary power over another, this actually made sense at the time.
Bailyn shows how the revolution transformed the heritage of British political thought into a uniquely American creation. The British, for instance, conceived of representation as "virtual" rather than direct. This meant that the representatives of a particular area were not representing the interests of that area but of the nation as a whole. This meant that the British believed the Americans were being represented even if they had no direct representatives. By the 1760's the colonists were starting to reject this notion in favor of a representation that more openly sought out the best for its constituents while not being totally averse to the common good. The colonists also rethought rights. The British thought of rights as emanating from natural law and the common law but contended that they did not need to be enumerated to have effect. Again, the colonists revised this belief, arguing that rights existed above the law, that the purpose of the law and government is to serve those rights, and that those rights must be written down if they are to be protected. Bailyn is simply outstanding at explaining these kinds of intellectual transformations.
While the ideas is this book are interesting, it's somewhat hard to follow and large sections of it are quite dry. The most interesting sections are probably the first two sections of the "Contagion of Liberty" chapter. Bailyn explains how the ideas of the revolution, especially equality and rights, challenged many different normal structures in society, such as slavery or the establishment of a Church. The revolutionary period witnessed the first major push against slavery in American history and started a wave of agitation that eventually undid Northern slavery and the slave trade. Obviously it was difficult to justify the continuation of slavery in the era of liberty, freedom, and enlightenment, but slave-owners came up with weak defenses away. Bailyn's treatment of slavery is much better than Wood, so simply states that the principles of the revolution doomed slavery. Bailyn more subtly argues that the revolution put slaveholders on the defensive and for the first time compelled them to justify the holding of slaves in bondage. In this telling, slavery was not doomed by the revolution, but the way many Americans talked and thought about slavery changed in ways that opened up its eventual containment, mitigation, and elimination.
October 31, 2012
The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution gives a unique, and innovative (for its time) perspective on the causes and ideology of the patriots before the American Revolution. Published in 1967, Bernard Bailyn makes a significant contribution to the study of the Revolution as an intellectual historian. The thesis for the book in his own words is, “that the American Revolution was above all else an ideological, constitutional, political struggle and not primarily a controversy between social groups undertaken to force changes in the organization of the society or the economy” (vi). In order to prove his thesis, Bailyn organizes the book into six topically organized chapters.
In “The Literature of Revolution” Bailyn explains the basis for his research by introducing the pamphlets that were passed through society to argue ideas. Some sparks for the use of those pamphlets included the Stamp Act, the Townsend Duties. There were three types of pamphlets: those in response to public events, individual exchanges or arguments, and orations that spoke of the remembrance of events such as the Stamp Act and the Boston Massacre. Bailyn explains that colonists identified mostly with ideological writers of the early eighteenth century. Chapter II, “Sources and Traditions” deals with some of the same but adds the point that the origins of the Revolution were derivatives of, “inconclusive ideas about the world and America’s place in it were fused in a comprehensive view, unique in its moral and intellectual appeal (22). In essence, the colonists revolted for these reasons and not just those traditional grievances.
“Power and Liberty: A Theory of Politics” deals with the distribution of power and the eighteenth century belief about it and its relationship of those who have it to others. He writes that power meant the dominion of some men over other and the control of human life (56). Those in power were supposed to look out for their people and liberty was based on the ability of the people to check power. Of course, this is completely opposite from living in a monarchy. In essence, they wanted a three branch system with checks and balances. In “The Logic of Rebellion,” Bailyn explains that the patriots started the Revolution on the basis that they “they were faced with conspirators against liberty determined at all costs to gain ends which their words dissembled” (95). In other words, the patriots did not agree that those in power were standing in the interests of liberty in the American colonies.
Chapter V, “Transformation” details the three goals of the patriots. First, they wanted local representation, second, a constitution that protected rights to liberty and finally, sovereignty. “The Contagion of Liberty” ends the book by explaining the issues that they newly liberated people had to deal with including: slavery, religion, and respect of supposed superiors.
Bailyn’s book is known as a classical study of the American Revolution and he does an excellent job of proving his thesis with the use of pamphlets extensively as primary sources. The book is organized sufficiently into different topics where he develops his evidence for his thesis throughout the book. It is not an overly easy read due to its wordiness but does a good job of explaining the details of his evidence; this could be seen as being oversimplified. All of his resources are cited with footnotes, and there are many on each page but the book does not contain a bibliography, perhaps because of the large number of resources that he used. There are no charts or maps for clarification, but because of the content and style they are not needed. The book is obviously a significant contribution because it has been around for so long and because of its perspective of the Revolution.
In “The Literature of Revolution” Bailyn explains the basis for his research by introducing the pamphlets that were passed through society to argue ideas. Some sparks for the use of those pamphlets included the Stamp Act, the Townsend Duties. There were three types of pamphlets: those in response to public events, individual exchanges or arguments, and orations that spoke of the remembrance of events such as the Stamp Act and the Boston Massacre. Bailyn explains that colonists identified mostly with ideological writers of the early eighteenth century. Chapter II, “Sources and Traditions” deals with some of the same but adds the point that the origins of the Revolution were derivatives of, “inconclusive ideas about the world and America’s place in it were fused in a comprehensive view, unique in its moral and intellectual appeal (22). In essence, the colonists revolted for these reasons and not just those traditional grievances.
“Power and Liberty: A Theory of Politics” deals with the distribution of power and the eighteenth century belief about it and its relationship of those who have it to others. He writes that power meant the dominion of some men over other and the control of human life (56). Those in power were supposed to look out for their people and liberty was based on the ability of the people to check power. Of course, this is completely opposite from living in a monarchy. In essence, they wanted a three branch system with checks and balances. In “The Logic of Rebellion,” Bailyn explains that the patriots started the Revolution on the basis that they “they were faced with conspirators against liberty determined at all costs to gain ends which their words dissembled” (95). In other words, the patriots did not agree that those in power were standing in the interests of liberty in the American colonies.
Chapter V, “Transformation” details the three goals of the patriots. First, they wanted local representation, second, a constitution that protected rights to liberty and finally, sovereignty. “The Contagion of Liberty” ends the book by explaining the issues that they newly liberated people had to deal with including: slavery, religion, and respect of supposed superiors.
Bailyn’s book is known as a classical study of the American Revolution and he does an excellent job of proving his thesis with the use of pamphlets extensively as primary sources. The book is organized sufficiently into different topics where he develops his evidence for his thesis throughout the book. It is not an overly easy read due to its wordiness but does a good job of explaining the details of his evidence; this could be seen as being oversimplified. All of his resources are cited with footnotes, and there are many on each page but the book does not contain a bibliography, perhaps because of the large number of resources that he used. There are no charts or maps for clarification, but because of the content and style they are not needed. The book is obviously a significant contribution because it has been around for so long and because of its perspective of the Revolution.
February 10, 2020
One of the best history books I've read in a while. It's not a simple narrative of the revolution, but an analysis of what the participants thought, as evidenced by what they wrote and read. Bailyn wrote the book as a response to editing a collection of pamphlets, and this book is largely seen in the historiography as challenging Beard's Progressive School of revolutionary history.
Many of the themes explored in this book would be expanded on by the work of Gordon Wood, Bailyn's student, but it's still worth reading this book. In particular, I liked learning about the popularity of "country whig" opposition literature in the united states. In Britain, a certain fringe literature developed in opposition to the perceived corruption of parliament by the ministers (through grants of pensions), as well as the centralization of power, in particular in response to Walpole administration as well as the fallout of the collapse of the South Sea bubble. Demonstrative of these writings were Cato's letters, a series of political writings that were reprinted and quoted from Zenger's case to Franklin's Silence Dodgewood as well as shorter works like Trenchard's polemic against standing armies. While the writings were not particularly ever mainstream in Britain, they made an impact on the united states (perhaps because of its provincial status as a backwater periphery), as evidenced by the various re-printings and citations. Bailyn argues that while the revolutionaries were fluent in the Greco-Roman classics as well as the popular enlightenment figures of the day, most citations to those sources were really window dressing, the frame of the thought was this country whig opposition that feared concentration of power and corruption.
Bailyn traces an almost conspiratorial thinking that convinced the revolutionaries that a conspiracy lead by British ministers (including the Earl of Brute) were seeking to squash American liberties (somewhat ironically, many loyalists and British officials had the sense that there was an American conspiracy to gain independence). The revolutionaries were at first self conscious of their provincial nature, but later came to see their rustic ways as closer to the virtue that is needed for liberty to flourish. They watched with dread as London seemed corrupt, with fighters for liberty such as Wilkes repressed. This sinister plan to strip the colonials of its liberties seemed to be reinforced by colonial policies such as the Stamp Act and the Coercive Act.
Particularly interesting, was the colonials rejection of the British political conception of parliament. The colonials actually looked towards an older medieval conception of the parliament where members were sent by their constituents with instructions to extract concessions in return for tax revenues. But by the time of the revolution, members of parliament were seen by the British as representing the whole British people, and not just their electors, a concept known as virtual representation. The revolutionaries rejected this concept, because they argued that while the British people may have been .virtually represented because their interests were tied to electors, the colonials were not. It was an accepted axiom of politics that there must be in any polity one supreme sovereign, that has no superior. After the glorious revolution, the British had lodged this sovereignty with parliament. But the colonists were used to ruling themselves (helped by the vast expanse of the Atlantic ocean), and tried to draw distinctions between parliaments and their own legislature's powers. First the the colonists argued that parliament controlled the external, while the colonists controlled the internal. When this distinction fell apart because of customs and duties (which seemed both external and internal), the colonists argued that the powers depended on the purpose of parliament's act (whether to raise revenue, not okay, or to regulate trade). Eventually, the colonists suggested that the colonies are actually not under the sovereignty of parliament but of the crown (an early commonwealth like idea). The Tories tore these distinctions, claiming that either the colonial legislatures or parliament was sovereign perhaps unintentionally reinforcing the movement towards independence. While British political theory considered the government itself, the constitution, the revolutionaries with their experience with charters started to conceive of the constitution as a more fundamental law that bound even legislatures. James Otis first argued that while parliament was supreme, it was still bound by some natural laws (misciting Bonham's case, which Otis had read to stand for the proposition that judges could strike down acts of parliament against natural law, when in fact the case was more about reading acts of parliament with a presumption that parliament intended to be rational), which it would itself correct, but the revolutionaries soon moved to the conception of the constitution we have today, that of the supreme law.
The revolution had also unleashed other unintentional forces, including serious criticism of slavery (even many revolutionaries noted the hypocrisy of calling a two cent tax on tea slavery while holding chattel slaves), movements to disestablish state churches, the concept of social superiors in wealth being natural leaders (instead of an internal meritocracy), and democratic impulses. Many revolutionaries had considered the British system (uncorrupted) to be liberty preserving because it mixed the three orders of society, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Too much democracy lead to anarchy, too much monarchy, tyranny and too much aristocracy to oligarchy. The crown, which was executive and tended towards power, would be checked by the house of lords (the aristocracy), from abusing the commons (the house of commons). Independent life tenure judges would also protect the commons from the crown stepping over the line. America had no nobles (which lead some revolutionaries to propose making nobles, or at least life appointed officials and others to celebrate this social fact, which they related to a golden Saxon age) so this framework never totally fit. Some thought that the upper house of the legislature could act for property or the intellectual elite, or that legal structures could replace the mixed structure of the British system. The great struggle was trying to fit new models of republicanism, and a leveled social structure with the inherited admiration for the British system.
The last chapter, is a short one on the federalists' challenge in overcoming all the inherited fear of centralized power, which was what 1776 seemed to many to be about. Bailyn argues that the federalists did so by drawing distinctions and downplaying fears while also inventing political concepts like federalism, state-federal concurrent powers over the military, and extended republics (Madison's famous federalist 10, arguing contra to Montesquieu that large republics meant it was harder to cobble together majorities of the same interest to oppress minorities). All sides feared that people's evil natures would cause government to be repressive, but the federalists argued that there must be some minimal virtue for any free people to survive, and hoped that the constitution designed would channel the selfish impulses away.
The book is a great read for those who like Gordon Wood and this school of thought. The first chapter, explaining in detail the context of pamphlets (the different types, the number of them) can be a bit of a drag but I feel like the book is very much worth reading. It is seminal in starting the idealogical school and does a great job of placing the revolution in the context of the imperial crisis, which should be fascinating for any American.
Many of the themes explored in this book would be expanded on by the work of Gordon Wood, Bailyn's student, but it's still worth reading this book. In particular, I liked learning about the popularity of "country whig" opposition literature in the united states. In Britain, a certain fringe literature developed in opposition to the perceived corruption of parliament by the ministers (through grants of pensions), as well as the centralization of power, in particular in response to Walpole administration as well as the fallout of the collapse of the South Sea bubble. Demonstrative of these writings were Cato's letters, a series of political writings that were reprinted and quoted from Zenger's case to Franklin's Silence Dodgewood as well as shorter works like Trenchard's polemic against standing armies. While the writings were not particularly ever mainstream in Britain, they made an impact on the united states (perhaps because of its provincial status as a backwater periphery), as evidenced by the various re-printings and citations. Bailyn argues that while the revolutionaries were fluent in the Greco-Roman classics as well as the popular enlightenment figures of the day, most citations to those sources were really window dressing, the frame of the thought was this country whig opposition that feared concentration of power and corruption.
Bailyn traces an almost conspiratorial thinking that convinced the revolutionaries that a conspiracy lead by British ministers (including the Earl of Brute) were seeking to squash American liberties (somewhat ironically, many loyalists and British officials had the sense that there was an American conspiracy to gain independence). The revolutionaries were at first self conscious of their provincial nature, but later came to see their rustic ways as closer to the virtue that is needed for liberty to flourish. They watched with dread as London seemed corrupt, with fighters for liberty such as Wilkes repressed. This sinister plan to strip the colonials of its liberties seemed to be reinforced by colonial policies such as the Stamp Act and the Coercive Act.
Particularly interesting, was the colonials rejection of the British political conception of parliament. The colonials actually looked towards an older medieval conception of the parliament where members were sent by their constituents with instructions to extract concessions in return for tax revenues. But by the time of the revolution, members of parliament were seen by the British as representing the whole British people, and not just their electors, a concept known as virtual representation. The revolutionaries rejected this concept, because they argued that while the British people may have been .virtually represented because their interests were tied to electors, the colonials were not. It was an accepted axiom of politics that there must be in any polity one supreme sovereign, that has no superior. After the glorious revolution, the British had lodged this sovereignty with parliament. But the colonists were used to ruling themselves (helped by the vast expanse of the Atlantic ocean), and tried to draw distinctions between parliaments and their own legislature's powers. First the the colonists argued that parliament controlled the external, while the colonists controlled the internal. When this distinction fell apart because of customs and duties (which seemed both external and internal), the colonists argued that the powers depended on the purpose of parliament's act (whether to raise revenue, not okay, or to regulate trade). Eventually, the colonists suggested that the colonies are actually not under the sovereignty of parliament but of the crown (an early commonwealth like idea). The Tories tore these distinctions, claiming that either the colonial legislatures or parliament was sovereign perhaps unintentionally reinforcing the movement towards independence. While British political theory considered the government itself, the constitution, the revolutionaries with their experience with charters started to conceive of the constitution as a more fundamental law that bound even legislatures. James Otis first argued that while parliament was supreme, it was still bound by some natural laws (misciting Bonham's case, which Otis had read to stand for the proposition that judges could strike down acts of parliament against natural law, when in fact the case was more about reading acts of parliament with a presumption that parliament intended to be rational), which it would itself correct, but the revolutionaries soon moved to the conception of the constitution we have today, that of the supreme law.
The revolution had also unleashed other unintentional forces, including serious criticism of slavery (even many revolutionaries noted the hypocrisy of calling a two cent tax on tea slavery while holding chattel slaves), movements to disestablish state churches, the concept of social superiors in wealth being natural leaders (instead of an internal meritocracy), and democratic impulses. Many revolutionaries had considered the British system (uncorrupted) to be liberty preserving because it mixed the three orders of society, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Too much democracy lead to anarchy, too much monarchy, tyranny and too much aristocracy to oligarchy. The crown, which was executive and tended towards power, would be checked by the house of lords (the aristocracy), from abusing the commons (the house of commons). Independent life tenure judges would also protect the commons from the crown stepping over the line. America had no nobles (which lead some revolutionaries to propose making nobles, or at least life appointed officials and others to celebrate this social fact, which they related to a golden Saxon age) so this framework never totally fit. Some thought that the upper house of the legislature could act for property or the intellectual elite, or that legal structures could replace the mixed structure of the British system. The great struggle was trying to fit new models of republicanism, and a leveled social structure with the inherited admiration for the British system.
The last chapter, is a short one on the federalists' challenge in overcoming all the inherited fear of centralized power, which was what 1776 seemed to many to be about. Bailyn argues that the federalists did so by drawing distinctions and downplaying fears while also inventing political concepts like federalism, state-federal concurrent powers over the military, and extended republics (Madison's famous federalist 10, arguing contra to Montesquieu that large republics meant it was harder to cobble together majorities of the same interest to oppress minorities). All sides feared that people's evil natures would cause government to be repressive, but the federalists argued that there must be some minimal virtue for any free people to survive, and hoped that the constitution designed would channel the selfish impulses away.
The book is a great read for those who like Gordon Wood and this school of thought. The first chapter, explaining in detail the context of pamphlets (the different types, the number of them) can be a bit of a drag but I feel like the book is very much worth reading. It is seminal in starting the idealogical school and does a great job of placing the revolution in the context of the imperial crisis, which should be fascinating for any American.
July 26, 2013
Interesting Quote:
"By July of 1776 much had already been done to extend the reign of liberty to the enslaved Negroes. In Massachusetts, efforts had been made as early as 1767 to abolish the slave trade, and in 1771 and 1774 the legislature voted conclusively to do so but was rebuffed by the governor's veto. In the same year the Continental Congress pledged itself to discontinue the slave trade everywhere, while Rhode Island, acknowledging that 'those who are desirous of enjoying all the advantages of liberty themselves should be willing to extend personal liberty to others,' ruled that slaves imported into the colony would thereafter automatically become free. Connecticut did the same; Delaware prohibited importation; and Pennsylvania taxed the trade out of existence. There, too, in 1775, the Quakers, long the most outspoken advocates of emancipation through not leaders in the Revolutionary movement, formed the first antislavery society in the Western world. In the South there was at least a general acquiescence in the Congress' inclusion of the slave trade in the nonimportation program and satisfaction on the part of many when in April 1776 Congress fulfilled its earlier pledge and voted 'that no slaves be imported into any of the thirteen colonies.'
"The institution of chattel slavery was not dead, even in the North, nor would it be for many years to come; critics of the Declaration of Independence would continue to join with Thomas Hutchinson in condemning the apparent hypocrisy of a people who declared that all men were created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, and yet deprived 'more than an hundred thousand Africans of their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and in some degree to their lives.' But it had been subjected to severe pressure as a result of the extension of Revolutionary ideas, and it bore the marks ever after. As long as the institution of slavery lasted, the burden of proof would lie with its advocates to show why the statement 'all men are created equal' did not mean precisely what it said: all men, 'white or black.'"
-Bernard Bailyn, the Ideological Origins of the American Revolution
"By July of 1776 much had already been done to extend the reign of liberty to the enslaved Negroes. In Massachusetts, efforts had been made as early as 1767 to abolish the slave trade, and in 1771 and 1774 the legislature voted conclusively to do so but was rebuffed by the governor's veto. In the same year the Continental Congress pledged itself to discontinue the slave trade everywhere, while Rhode Island, acknowledging that 'those who are desirous of enjoying all the advantages of liberty themselves should be willing to extend personal liberty to others,' ruled that slaves imported into the colony would thereafter automatically become free. Connecticut did the same; Delaware prohibited importation; and Pennsylvania taxed the trade out of existence. There, too, in 1775, the Quakers, long the most outspoken advocates of emancipation through not leaders in the Revolutionary movement, formed the first antislavery society in the Western world. In the South there was at least a general acquiescence in the Congress' inclusion of the slave trade in the nonimportation program and satisfaction on the part of many when in April 1776 Congress fulfilled its earlier pledge and voted 'that no slaves be imported into any of the thirteen colonies.'
"The institution of chattel slavery was not dead, even in the North, nor would it be for many years to come; critics of the Declaration of Independence would continue to join with Thomas Hutchinson in condemning the apparent hypocrisy of a people who declared that all men were created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, and yet deprived 'more than an hundred thousand Africans of their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and in some degree to their lives.' But it had been subjected to severe pressure as a result of the extension of Revolutionary ideas, and it bore the marks ever after. As long as the institution of slavery lasted, the burden of proof would lie with its advocates to show why the statement 'all men are created equal' did not mean precisely what it said: all men, 'white or black.'"
-Bernard Bailyn, the Ideological Origins of the American Revolution
December 3, 2008
I am not sure how much I liked this book. It was really lyrical and fascinating in some places, but in others I felt I was banging my head against a brick wall. Oh Bernard, the first horrible pamphlet chapter has got to be rewritten. And tone down those footnotes! In some places they take up half the page! Still, there was much to be gleaned from these pages and follows the thought process of the colonial revolutionaries quite well. I just can't decide whether I sell the book back to the campus bookstore or hang onto it. If I think about the first chapter though, this book will be first in line for the selling...
April 7, 2012
The title explains the book's subject sufficiently. All that I can contribute is that this book is highly academic and not suitable to a reader with little prior knowledge of the American Revolution and early republic periods. The content of the book is amazing but its readability is quite rough, more so than I expected. I'm relieved to have finished it, but know I'll have to revisit it later in the future..
August 18, 2015
Excellent for understanding the political background of the American Revolution. What influences shaped the American colonists' rebellion and formation of new governments are clearly explained. A classic in American revolutionary studies
October 17, 2010
This book gets three stars not because it's bad, but because it's boring. And now I'm done and get to move on to something else. Unfortunately, that something else is Gordon Wood.
August 12, 2011
Bailyn is a masterful writer who makes his point without going over the top in the implications.
August 30, 2014
whew...that took a lot of effort...
November 1, 2017
Honestly, I love love love history, but history textbooks are painful.
April 30, 2018
Reading this was only slightly more interesting than reading a bibliography.
November 26, 2020
This is a very scholarly book. Not at all interesting to casual readers. Obviously well researched, but not an enjoyable read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 157 reviews