Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different

by Gordon S. Wood

A New York Times  bestseller! 

"Of those writing about the founding fathers, [Gordon Wood] is quite simply the best." — The Philadelphia Inquirer

In this brilliantly illuminating group portrait of the men who came to be known as the Founding Fathers, the incomparable Gordon Wood has written a book that seriously asks, What made these men great, and shows us, among many other things, just how much character did in fact matter. The life of each, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, Paine, is presented individually as well as collectively, but the thread that binds these portraits together is the idea of character as a lived reality. They were members of the first generation in history that was self-consciously self-made men who understood that the arc of lives, as of nations, is one of moral progress.

Lin-Manuel Miranda’s smash Broadway musical Hamilton sparked new interest in the Revolutionary War and the Founding Fathers. In addition to Alexander Hamilton, the production also features George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Aaron Burr, Lafayette, and many more.

Look for Gordon's 2017 release, Friends  John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. 

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Biography, American Revolution, Politics, American Revolutionary War

336 pages, Paperback

First published April 3, 2006

About the author

Gordon Stewart Wood is an American historian and professor at Brown University. He is a recipient of the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for History for The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992). His book The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (1969) won the 1970 Bancroft Prize. In 2010, he was awarded the National Humanities Medal by President Barack Obama.

Reviews

[robin friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

America's Founders And American Ideals

For much of our history, the leaders of the American Revolution and the framers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution enjoyed iconic, mythic status. But they have also been subjected to criticism and debunking, based on their alleged elitism, racism, and sexism in our increasingly cynical, skeptical age.

In his recent collection of essays, "Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different" (2006), Gordon Wood offers thoughtful meditations on the Founders. Gordon Wood is Professor of History at Brown University. He is deservedly esteemed for his studies of the Revolutionary era.

In his book, Wood offers succinct discussions of the Founders, their backgrounds, what they did, and, most importantly, what they thought. He sets the Founders within their time but shows, paradoxically, how the success of the Founders made their achievements and characters impossible to replicate in subsequent generations.

Wood's book consists of individual essays on eight founders, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Paine, and Burr. His Introduction and concluding Epilogue attempt to bring coherence to the story. For Wood, what sets the Founders apart from subsequent leaders was their ability to combine high intellectual achievement in politics with the life of affairs and leadership. In much of the subsequent history of the United States, intellectuals and thinkers have been separated from active political life and, in fact, alienated from it. (Thus, the cynicism that I mentioned at the outset of this review.) He finds that the Founders were able to combine the world of intellect with that of practical politics through a devotion to Enlightenment and aristocratic ideals, including ideals regarding the role of an educated gentleman in society, and ideals of civil behavior and good manners, in a broad sense. The Founders were in part individuals who had risen by their own efforts, in most cases through education and study. They used their success to devote themselves to the good of the country and to expand the scope of public participation. This expansion of the scope of citizen participation in the government lead to democracy and egalitarianism and destroyed the conditions which had made the achievement of the Founders itself possible.

Of the essays in the book, the first, "On the Greatness of George Washington" is a reminder of why this reserved, austere figure deserves to be remembered as the greatest of Presidents and as the greatest member of an outstanding generation. The essays on John Adams and James Madison have the highest degree of intellectual content. In the Adams essay, Woods discusses Adams' political philosophy and shows how it was in part prescient and profound and in part based upon a misunderstanding of American constitutionalism. In the essay on Madison, Woods argues that there was a unity of thought throughout his career, rather than a switch from Federalism to states rights and democracy, as argued by many.

The essays of Thomas Paine and Aaron Burr are interesting in themselves and also for the light the cast on the other Founders. In both cases, Wood uses them as foils. Paine was already a democrat and a writer of inflammatory prose for readers without education or knowledge of the classics. This set him apart from his contemporaries. Aaron Burr abandoned the ideal and devotion to public service of the remaining founders and devoted himself solely to the pursuit of his own interests. This basic change, (and not his subsequent activities in the West for which he was tried for treason) is, for Wood, "The Real Treason of Aaron Burr."

Wood's book is an outstanding way to become reacquainted with the American Founders. It encouraged me to think about how American ideals originated, and how they developed and changed through time.

Robin Friedman

[Will Byrnes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wood offers a chapter each to a slew of household names from the time of the Revolution. It is like getting to read a very well-informed mini-biography on each. One thing I found was that the turmoil of the post revolutionary period left me in a bit of a daze. There was not only considerable diversity among the founders in terms of their macro views (if not their gender or ethnicity) and when this is combined with the rapid and significant changes the foundling nation was undergoing, it makes the whole quite a challenge to take in.

There are concepts aplenty here, and many are surprising. For those of us who have an interest in American history, but who are not history scholars, Wood's work offers a nifty primer on the issues, personalities and social/political tensions of the revolutionary and post-revolutionary era.

This is an accessible and engaging window on American history.

[Trisha · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked up this book at the library on July 3 so I could start reading it the next day. My plan was to spend most of the 4th trying to learn a little about some of the founding fathers. It was a great idea, however I probably should have picked something a little less daunting since this book was obviously intended for people who had paid more attention during their history classes and were already familiar with the founders. Nevertheless I kept at it and if nothing more it has proven that I am woefully ignorant when it comes to things I probably ought to know about how our country was founded. I must have been sick the week we studied the American Revolution. Obviously I wasn’t there the day we covered the Continental Congress. And just what was the Virginia Plan? I’ve forgotten. For that matter I can’t remember exactly what Aaron Burr did to earn him the title of traitor or why he ended up having a duel with (and killing) Alexander Hamilton. It’s a good thing I don’t have to take a test on any of this. But what I did enjoy about Gordon Wood’s book were the character sketches – details about the kind of men the founders were: 18th century gentlemen who placed a high priority on honor, dignity and good manners; extremely intelligent and articulate, well read (although not all of them were formally educated); creative and passionate about what they were doing. It must have been a fascinating time to be alive – especially if you happened to be born a male and could live comfortably (thanks to your family’s money and the slaves you kept on your plantation.) If nothing else reading this book has made me realize that I really should stop reading so many 19th century British novels and pay a little more attention to what was going on in this country a century before that. Maybe I need to make more of an effort. After struggling through this book, I think I’ll try to make it a point to read something each year that deals with American History. It might make up for all the times I failed to pay more attention in school.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent book that looks at the characters of the American Revolution & what made them different. The book assumes a working knowledge of the time period since it focuses on eight men & what their motivations were. Extensively documented, other readings are suggested as needed. His basic premise is that these men were revolutionaries that fought themselves out of a job. If he has a political axe to grind, he kept it out of his writing as far as I could tell, which I appreciated, especially after reading Zinn's, "History of the US".

Well written & quite readable, Wood makes a character sketch of:
George Washington
Ben Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Aaron Burr
John Adams
Alexander Hamilton
Thomas Paine

Through personal letters & other accounts, his interpretation of their motivations comes through clearly from the heroic moral fortitude of Washington to Burr's real treason, using his office for personal gain. I didn't always agree with his ideas, though. His portrait of Jefferson & Adams as men bewildered by what they wrought doesn't ring quite true to me. In any case, he makes his point well & interestingly enough to warrant reading it. I think it is a must for any one seriously interested in the founding of our country.

[David Eppenstein · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love history especially that of our Revolution so I was looking forward to reading this book. I wish I could say I enjoyed it but I did not. Certainly Wood's scholarship and writing are not at fault as the book is quite well researched and written. Unfortunately, it is a book that only a reader devoted to historical scholarship and political science is likely to enjoy. While the book offers chapters on several of our Founders the book is really about their various political ideas and philosophies. It then becomes more of a history of the rise and fall of the American gentleman in politics before and after the Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution. It would appear that the Federalist and Republican Founders had their ideas of what our country should become and who should lead it and they were both undone by the nature of the American people. On the whole I didn't learn anything I didn't already know and what I didn't know really wasn't all that enlightening.

[Anthony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gordon S. Wood is Professor of History at Brown University. He received the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for History for The Radicalism of the American Revolution and the 1970 Bancroft Prize for The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 .

Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different is a series of essays covering each of eight different founding fathers: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and Aaron Burr. Rather than discuss what the founders accomplished, the essays (about 20 to 30 pages apiece) examine the character, philosophy, and virtues of each of these men. The essays are sandwiched between an introduction and an epilogue which bind the essays together.

Some of the main themes conveyed in the essays include: Washington, the only truly classical hero we have ever had, had a lifelong preoccupation with his reputation for "disinterestedness". Franklin was the most American of the founders and yet he was also the most European. Jefferson, firmly believing in the inherent beneficence of men, celebrated society's superiority over government. Hamilton, the big-business man and big-government man, fought to tie the two together, and in doing so became the man who made modern America. There is no "James Madison Problem" after all - it was the over-reach of Federalism that was changing during the early 1790's, and not the views of Madison. Adams, who had led the charge in the fight for independence, was convinced that he would never receive due recognition and continually sought to bolster his legacy. Paine was the first "public intellectual" whose prose aroused not only the politically-connected and enlightened (as most writing of the era targeted only them), but the common folk as well. Lastly, and in stark contrast, Burr's use of his office to promote his own self interest was not so much an act of treason against his country, but against his class.

Professor Wood reminds us that these men were not born into wealth, aristocracy, and gentility; they were all self-made men - the first in their families to attend college and certainly the first to become "gentlemen". He posits that their success essentially secured their own extinction in that they created (unwittingly) an egalitarian system of rule in which subsequent leaders did not necessarily need to possess an enlightened, disinterested (i.e., having no personal or financial stake), virtuous, or even gentlemenly character.

[Vincent Li · Rating 4 out of 5]

Similar to the Idea of America in that Revolutionary Characters is a collection of previously written essays edited for a more popular audience. I actually fairly enjoy the format, which paints the main themes of Wood's work (the gentlemen culture, republicanism, and the birth of democratic culture) while still being accessible (unlike the very dense Radicalism of the American Revolution [worth a read, but hardly a poolside read]). The book consists of short biographical sketches of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, John Adams, Paine, and Burr. The chapters are less chronicles of the lives of the founders than illustrations in the general themes Wood explores elsewhere (for example, Wood sees Burr's real treason as a betrayal of the gentlemen class virtues by nakedly pursuing his self-interest instead of acting in a disinterested matter, and argues that Paine was America's first public intellectual, writing to the masses instead of the republic of letters [though ultimately undone by his candor in regards to his belief in deism]). Wood's introduction explains that the founding generation was truly unique and unleashed a democratic spirit that would ensure that such a ruling class would not be replicated in the United States. A running theme is that the founders created a public spirit that celebrated the people and the democratic spirit that eroded their own power base (natural aristocracy) and left many of them bewildered at the transformation near the end of their lives.

Washington is framed as the ideal gentleman and hyper concerned with his reputation (at least in modern eyes). Wood discusses the reputation that Washington established by surrendering his command at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, which was unprecedented and earned him the name of the modern Cincinnatus. Several times Washington was cajoled into making his decisions based on the impact on his reputation (once in regard to donating a gift of shares to what would become the university of washington and lee, in rejecting leadership of the society of cincinnati, both issues dear to his heart [these are mentioned in radicalism of the american revolution as well]). In fact, even when it came to presiding over the constitutional convention, Washington was finally convinced to preside to avoid the impression that he hoped the convention would fail so he could take over as a military dictator. Wood argues that one of Washington's greatest acts was to free his slaves on his death. Washington even privately concluded that if the country was to break apart, he would be on the side of the union. Also interesting was the ambiguous nature of the executive, which some (high federalists in particular, with Hamilton hoping that the United States would grow into a comparable european fiscal-military state [with ability to raise money and wage war]) regarded as an elected monarch. Washington was the only person capable of being trusted in this supreme position, throughout his term there were many trappings of european monarchy.

The chapter on Franklin is an abridgement of the Americanization of Benjamin Franklin (worth a read of its own). In particular Wood shows the transformation of Franklin from imperial servant to Revolutionary. Wood notes that unlike the other founders, Franklin already had an international reputation as a scientist, frequently considered permanently relocating to Europe and bragged of his connections to the imperial government. Franklin sought an imperial appointment as late as the 1770s, before being humiliated by the government for some political miscalculations (publically releasing the hutchinson letters). In one particularly spectacular moment, it is said that after his public humiliation Franklin told one official that he would "make your king a LITTLE KING". Wood argues that one of the reasons that Franklin became so patriotic was his loyalties were questioned because he was a late (though authentic, mainly through being spurred) convert to the revolutionary cause.

The essays on Adams, Madison and Jefferson are interesting in that they show some of the nuances of the "first" party system. Wood notes that the federalists and republicans were not modern parties in any meaning of the word. The federalists considered themselves the government, and considered the republicans to be subversive elements challenging the government (this was particularly interesting in context of the sedition acts, which the federalists thought was legitimate to protect the government, while the republicans developed an early argument for the marketplace of ideas, which symbolizes the birth of public opinion), while the republicans considered themselves a temporary alliance meant to restore true revolutionary values (similar to English Whigs). Jefferson and Madison represented a strain of revolutionary thought that assumed that if left alone the natural impulses of society would allow civilization and people to prosper. Central to their belief was the role of trade in connecting peoples peacefully (similar to Kant's perpetual peace argument) and the rationale behind the disastrous embargo (which Wood notes still exists as economic sanctions). Jefferson and Madison thought that monarchical power was tied to warfare, standing armies and tyranny and stood in direct opposition to Hamilton. Wood argues that there is no "Madison problem" (between the Madison of the Federalist, and the Madison of the Kentucky Resolutions). Wood argues that Madison was always concerned about the abuses of the popular legislatures (in his virginia plan, both houses were proportional, and congress would wield a veto over state laws against the Union. Madison also suggested that there be a judicial/executive council to wield this veto. When these were rejected, Madison thought the constitution would fail. Ultimately, Madison supported SCOTUS judicial review) but did not favor the fiscal/executive/military state that Hamilton supported (which was ultimately the most forward looking). Wood's essay on Adams is interesting as well. Adams was outside of the country during the crucial period of the convention. While Adams supported the tripartite structure, he relied on classical rationales of republicanism, which saw each branch as representative of an order of society (the senate- aristocracy, the house- the populace and the executive/monarchy to balance the two). Adams based this on his pessimistic view of humanity as jealous and scrambling for honors. While most political theory by that point agreed with the conclusion, it did not agree with the rationale, which rested on a theory of popular sovereignty (the people doling out its sovereignty to the government which have parts of that authority as agents of the people). Overall, an enjoyable read that does not repeat the rote popular biographies but not dense enough to give you a headache in the sun.

[Kevin · Rating 1 out of 5]

"Nearly all of what follows has been previously published, either in articles, reviews, or books . . ."
- Gordon S. Wood

And there you have it. If you have ever read anything about the eight founding fathers (founders) briefly summarized in this book then don't bother with Gordon Wood's Revolutionary Characters.

On the other hand, if you never read anything about George Washington et al, don't remember anything from high school or college and are not interested in learning a whole lot, then Wood's work will provide you a few details that you can quickly forget.

This book is primarily an op ed piece that is highly repetitive, makes liberal use of "we" (as in Americans, historians, or scholars) and has a good deal of absolute statements with little support. "No one . . ." might be Wood's favorite phrase.

The first four chapters are essentially a puff piece while the last four actually do a little bit of tearing down. Wood didn't have much to say about Thomas Paine or Aaron Burr which is why their chapters might be the shortest.

The primary issue is that Wood is trying to demonstrate how the founders were different but doing it within 20 to 30 (or so) pages. Not an easy thing to do and ultimately Wood fails to meet his goal. The amount of space allotted per founder was simply not enough to provide the detailed support Wood needed.

The eight (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Paine, and Burr) are all important to American history. Yet were they truly "different" or were they just in the right place at the right time and willing to seize an opportunity? If the latter, then they are like many other historical Americans students are forced to study, e.g. Rockefeller, Ford, Vanderbilt, etc.

But Wood wants the reader to think it's the former and spends 240 pages (not counting the epilogue) summarizing the gentlemanly (or not in Burr's case) characteristics these men possessed and how they related to the Enlightenment.

There are even historical errors and/or historical, um, forgetfulness in the book. For example, Wood says that Washington was the only one to free his slaves when in reality Jefferson did release a handful himself.

And in a twist of irony, Wood was more than willing to note that the founders were amateur writers, and yet Wood himself uses the same term or phrase over and over within a span of few sentences (hello thesaurus). How many times can one use the word calculated in the same paragraph (see Ben Franklin's chapter)?

Ultimately I found this to be a rather boring book.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

While Gordon Wood is one of the leading historians of the 18th Century nascent American republic and his depth and breadth of knowledge is remarkably impressive, this book comes across as a pale version of Joseph Ellis's "Founding Brothers," with the essays on select founders. Too often does the author come across as lecturing the reader about these significant revolutionary men instead of simply weaving a binding and mesmerizing analysis that continually engages the reader upon each page turn.

There were under five misused words throughout this book that escaped the eyes of a diligent proofreader (but spellcheck didn't catch due to them not being misspellings) which unacceptably reflects a cursory effort on behalf of such an esteemed writer like Mr. Wood.

Nonetheless, in spite of these shortcomings, he does write an interesting series of essays about these characters. I thought it was refreshing to see an overview of Thomas Paine included in this book as he is often overlooked. I also give the author due credit for properly defining and explaining the word "disinterested," which in today's lexicon tends to erroneously mean "uninterested" when in fact it should quite correctly mean "fair" and "impartial."

Overall, this is a good read yet with glaring imperfections. I would recommend Joseph Ellis's "Founding Brothers" instead for a better written and more enjoyable take on these important characters and events of this era.

[Jocelin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a very fascinating biography on the founders of our nation. I really enjoyed the chapter on George Washington. The information that was presented about him was something that I was not aware of in the past. I am glad that the author chose to encompass the entire life of the founders instead of just focusing on one area. He presented each of the men as just that, men. They were not perfect, divine or overtly horrible. They were flawed and imperfect, but they were leaders and forgers of our nation just the same. They each had an idea of leading and directing our young nation into being. Well done.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed listening to these essays during my daily commute. I learned many things about my American history and heritage. It also inspired me to read some of Thomas Paine's works. I think I have also found a way to get more non-fiction into my reading diet. It's definitely more enjoyable to listen to and focus on via an audiobook then overcoming the stigma of reading what amounts to a textbook.

[Sara · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am a big fan of the founding fathers and this book offered a different perspective on them than your typical biography or non-fiction. It wasn’t about who they were or what they did, but more why they did it. This book dives into the founders’ values both as individuals and a collective group and how that influenced the founding of the USA.

What makes this book very thought-provoking is the idea of “disinterestedness.” This doesn’t mean uninterested but rather “above interest” and able to objectively look at issues from all sides and determine, through scholarship and debate, what the best path forward is. In today’s world this type of value is seen as elitist and in many ways the founders were elitist. Thomas Paine’s ‘Common Sense’ was not a bestseller because it was a new idea that took the nation by storm. It was a success because it was written as a common man would read and understand it. Same goes for Patrick Henry’s speeches. However, to form a new nation, on such “lofty ideals” like freedom and liberty, we needed men that embodied disinterestedness. Men that could debate these issues above where special interests may be, how it would be interpreted by the people, or the mechanics of how it would actually work. Because of this the founders could build something that had never been done before. They weren’t limited by “reality.” What they built has stood the test of time and grown with us as we have grown and changed.

These men were truly great and I enjoyed reading and learning about them through a different perspective.

[Eden · Rating 4 out of 5]

Besides providing short but deeply insightful character studies of each of the founding fathers of the United States, it provides a brilliant analysis of the age that created the nation. What a fascinating era of human history!

Considering how short the book is, it is impressive just how much is packed into it.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gordon Wood is a well reputed historian. Here, he examines some of the more important (and interesting) of the Founders and those interacting with them. Wood's main point is that character was a matter of great importance for the leaders of the new government. When those with great potential--such as Aaron Burr--raised questions about their own character, it led people to doubt them.

The opening chapter of the book places this volume in context. Wood discusses the context in which the Founders developed and exercised influence over public matters. They were concerned with character, with what people thought of them, with a sense of displaying "disinteredness." Outside of Burr (ironic indeed), the main Founders came from lesser circumstances than what they became. They saw themselves as not just common people, but as those who had excelled and demonstrated themselves, for want of a better term, of being a natural, meritocratic aristocracy.

The book examines several of the Founders--George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Adams. As counterpoint, Wood considers Thomas Paine and, as already noted, Aaron Burr.

Washington is shown to be someone who attempted to exercise absolute control over his presentation of self to the larger world, conscious of his dignity, and, later, his place in history. He took great pains to demonstrate his disinterest in pursuing success (even though, obviously, he was ambitious). Franklin is portrayed, too, as an elusive figure, trying to project a particular image and not revealing too much of himself. Wood notes that Franklin's Autobiography illustrates this very well. And so on.

To provide counterpoint to the Founders, Wood notes Paine and Burr. Aaron Burr had a better pedigree than any of the other figures in this book. He lived as a gentleman (albeit profligately). He would do whatever he had to do to succeed--whether financially or politically. And he did not distinguish the two realms very much. Her was not above using his political offices to try to generate profit (he was always on the verge of financial disaster). And this is what alienated Burr from other leaders--his self-interest was manifest, whereas others professed "disinteredness."

At any rate, this is an interesting volume, one that focuses on character of the individuals covered in this work. Sometimes, I think that the narrative is a bit oversimplistic. Nonetheless, Wood has captured, I think, something of the ethos of leadership in the latter part of the 18th and early part of the 19th centuries. Well written. People interested in the subject covered here will find this a good read.

[Wesley Morgan · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Despite periodic biographies and occasional op-ed tributes in the Wall Street Journal, it seems unlikely that Hamilton can ever acquire a warm place in the hearts of most Americans." Haha, I'd love to see Mr. Wood react to that statement now.

In this post-Hamilton world, people seem to know a lot more about our founding fathers as real people, not just faces on coins and textbooks. Still, I like the approach of this book, showing how each man was actually a human with a personality, and how that determined the role he played in the revolution. There were insightful discussions of how our "nobility" in the Americas compared to the English, and why the chip on all of their shoulders allowed for such radical social changes. They still had to prove themselves as being of high morals to be accepted as leaders, a trend that unfortunately did not last. They all believed in democracy, but had different visions for how it should or could be carried out.

George Washington was the only truly "heroic" character, and he spent his entire life cultivating that image. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were the most realistic, and I believe they deserve all the credit they get for setting up our country's systems. One side-note, while I have no problem with the multi-racial casing of "Hamilton," it does bug me that these men were both portrayed as large, when this book clearly shows that their small stature was drove them to always try to prove themselves.

Ben Franklin wasn't quite as important as I thought. I didn't realize how much of his persona was an act, and how absent he was during important events. Still a genius, but more of a figure than a fighter. John Adams & Tom Paine were not likable at all, but they got stuff done that we needed them to, and they were true to what they personally believed, even when it went against the crowd.

I will probably never like Thomas Jefferson. I think he might be the biggest hypocrite in American history. He wrote so much about philosophical ideals for our country that he did not live up to. That being said, we do have to be grateful for him as a president, especially since the alternative, Aaron Burr, might have been the worst thing to ever happen to our country.

[Brian Willis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a collection of reworked essays profiling the personal qualities and philosophies of the following Founders: Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Paine, and Burr. It serves as an excellent introduction or refresher on the character and qualities of those founders with the central thesis that the very establishment of the American republic guaranteed that the people who would be chosen to lead it would never replicate the quality of the founders.

These founders (with Burr as the outlier) emerged as leaders because they lived in a time where our leaders were chosen precisely because of the quality of their character and their "disinterestedness", ie the perception of their not wanting public life or of being incapable morally of using it for personal profit. This was certainly true of these Founders except for Burr, whose duplicity and evident selfishness brought down his own downfall. By their insistence in placing ultimate power in the people, however, public opinion rather than moral and intellectual superiority began to replace the self-evident quality of character that called on these founders to positions of leadership. Wood traces this downfall specifically to the Sedition Act of 1798, when the Federalist Party sought to dampen the rise of the Republican party, which slandered and debased John Adams and even Washington himself. It was then that what was said about a person began to emerge as the most important quality in political leaders, with the ugly election of 1800 the result. Public opinion, informed or not, became most important, and the best and the brightest were no longer necessarily called to public service or indeed elected. One simply needs to look to the rise of Andrew Jackson, the most admired President of our current un-intellectual POTUS 45, to see how quickly this became true. A great primer on the personalities of the above Founders and always a joy to read Gordon Wood.

[W · Rating 5 out of 5]

The subtitle about what made the Founding Fathers "different" is a pun. By taking each of them separately, Wood brings out the differences and disputes between them, unsettling any sense that the Founding was a moment of idealistic consensus. Instead of the Constitution being treated as gospel and the Founding being seen as a period of definite ideals to hark back to, his essays show how the aims and organization of the new nation were always and already subjects for disagreement and division. There were Washington, obsessed with his reputation for virtue, and Burr, the value-free conspirator; Jefferson, the utopian for the free enterprise of the sociable individual, and Hamilton, the progenitor of the fiscal-military state; Madison, the putative Father of the Constitution, who favored a federal veto of state laws eligible "in all cases whatsoever", and whose Virginia Plan was unrecognizably altered into a federal model with a Senate posted to defend the interests of each State, starting out alongside Hamilton but then siding against him with Jefferson; John Adams, the pessimistic conservative, who believed in the inevitability of inequality and elitism, and in the necessity of stringent government power to control the passions of the populace, who despaired of America's corruption from the start and could not abide the notion of popular sovereignty, and Paine or Patrick Henry, plain-speaking tribunes of the common man. Not even at its outset was there a harmonious idealism from which today's Americans can draw any simple lesson.

[Ashley Nef · Rating 4 out of 5]

A series of essays essentially outlining just how different from us the founding fathers were as seen by the cultural standards of their day. Enlightening, and sometimes quite engaging. Overall, a good introduction to the founding fathers to get a sense of them, their times, and the attitudes behind the founding of America.

My favorite essay was on George Washington - he strongly argues that Washington was - without exception - the greatest president we have ever had, an opinion I eagerly share with him.

On occasion, Wood's current political opinions filter into his argumentation (he's very disapproving of big government), but I suppose that is hard to avoid when comparing our modern-day political standards with those of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. However, I do think it biases him unfairly against Alexander Hamilton, and favorably towards Thomas Jefferson in ways I don't think are fully merited or supported by the text.

But then again I have always been, and always will be, very biased in favor of Alexander Hamilton, so take that as you will.

Not the best book I have read on the Revolutionary War and America's founders, but a good, brief introduction.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Revolutionary Characters was a fun, easy to read book, that brought to life the characters of the American Revolution.

A common lament since the days of the founding fathers has been ¨Where have such leaders gone?¨ This book argues that these men were the product of a unique period of history, and a unique set of ambitions. For the most part, they truly tried to serve ¨the greater good¨ rather than their own self interest - not because they were of better moral fiber, but because that was the vogue of the day.

It also argues that the government we ended up with was not the country intended by the fathers - that it was a piece-meal product of competing ideas and ambitions. Many of the founders despaired at the end of their careers as they saw the direction the country was taking, yet despite their misgivings, they had stumbled upon a formula that has seemed to work. This debunks another popular myth, that the founders had such foresight that they were able to forsee the course of the country - that our government works because it is well designed.

In all, an interesting, enjoyable read.

[Curtis · Rating 5 out of 5]

After reading several books about the Revolutionary period, I doubted whether this book would be able to offer anything new, especially considering its size when compaired to Gordon Wood's other massive tomes on the subject. However I was thoroughly surprised when I discovered that the author lived up to his name and delivered a fascinating new take on the founders. While the stories he tells about them were familar, his interpretations of events, their causes and results, and their effects on modern-day thinking were very refreshing and entirely new. I highly recommend this book. It is by no means intimidating; its short length and succinct chapters make it easy to approach. It will give both rookie and veteran scholars of the revolutionary period much to think and praise about.

[Stan Lanier · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good introduction to some of the leading characters of the American Revolution. (I found it particularly enriching to read this in conjunction with Joseph J. Ellis's Founding Brothers.)Two caveats that may deter some readers: 1) The book is a reworking of earlier individual essays (thus, no narrative flow,as such);2) It is clearly a work in academic prose rather than the language of a storyteller. The portraits drawn are interesting and much can be earned when compared with one's own understandings and those of other writers. There are two illuminating essays on the Founders and the 18th century understanding of the Enlightenment and on the Founders and the creation of modern public opinion.

[William Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

what seemed to me to be more of a retort to gore vidal's book of the same kind, and in by far a more academic endeavor than gore's, this book comes off without bias, detailing in a short and direct way, the personal lives and intimacies of the founding fathers. bravo to gordon wood for including Thomas Payne in this book as a father of America, as well as to his detailing the individual mindset, theories, philosophies, mannerisms and quirks of each of the different men, showing us that they were not all of the same frame of mind in most respects, but most times, at odds with one another's philosophies as well as their own from time to time.

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

That old rascal Aaron Burr warned us about historians, who always distrusted the prejudices of historians who shade their studies in a particular direction. Professor Wood, while as brilliant a researcher as ever opened a diary or letter, is so in love with the egalitarian and "republican" attitudes of the likes of Jefferson and even Paine's philosophy, that this effort annoyed my 18th Century attitudes and Tory nature to its roots. Ah, for such skills, and a truly objective and "disinterested" approach, Wood would be a world class practitioner, not just a solid, if horribly nationalistic, one...

[Kiera Beddes · Rating 4 out of 5]

There was a chapter dedicated to each of the Founding Fathers: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Paine and Aaron Burr (although I don't know for the life of me why anyone would want to dedicate a whole chapter to stupid Aaron Burr). I appreciated that Wood took a honest look at each man, without all the hero worship that you find so often in history textbooks. All their virtues and faults were discussed as well as their contributions for good or for ill.

1st read: Summer 2015
2nd read: Summer 2016

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beautifully written, and a useful one-stop for those who already know some revolutionary war history to gain deeper insight into the unique legacy and true character of the major founders.

Gordon Wood is a conservative in the classic sense, and it is his insightful essay on the decline of the intellectual of leadership of great men (and the rise of the unthinking masses) which I found most original and a little saddening.

Highly recommended.

[Matthew Sparling · Rating 4 out of 5]

A unique perspective on the Revolutionary men (including some of the lesser known) and how their personalities and beliefs shaped their politics. A good book for someone interested in either revolutionary war history or political history.

[Tracy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoughtful essays on American founders. Helped me better understand their worldviews and appreciate their struggles to create and maintain an infant country 200+ years ago.

[Stephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Revolutionary Characters reviews the lives of several of the United States’ founding fathers to examine how the personal strengths and ambitions of these men allowed them to play uniquely essential roles in a pivotal time. The men so detailed are George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine, John Adams, and (interestingly) Aaron Burr – the latter included more for comparison’s sake, as he had many of their advantages but failed to distinguish himself for anything more than shooting Hamilton, praiseworthy as that was. Wood opens with a review of how the Founders have been alternately venerated and dismissed throughout American history, and his conclusion that Americans need the story of the Founders and the Founding to tie us together as a nation, since the United States was and remains a novel country, one based on ideas rather than blood.

Revolutionary Characters is not a collection of minihagiographies, nor is it a train of tedious, unimaginative debunkin hit pieces. Wood examines the unique lives of each of these men, assaying their strengths and the part they played. Woods sticks most closely to conventional Founding-Father writing in his opening chapter on Washington, but Washington forces the author’s hand by consciously playing the part of the noble, disinterested leader, and avoiding anything that diminish the icon he was creating of himself. Most of the founding fathers, bar Burr, were recent arrivals to the ranks of the gentry – and they compensated for their lack of breeding by cultivating themselves, both their minds and their characters. They took this especially serious as they realized they were driving the creation of something new in the world, and would be held to especially strict scrutiny. None was more serious about his study than Washington, and Woods argues that Aaron Burr’s real treason lay not in trying to create a new republic in the west, but by ignoring all convention of moral responsibility and behaving like a decadent European aristocrat – never giving any heed to how posterity might regard him, but only to the material gains he could realize and the favors he could call in. Burr’s inclusion in this book is odd, even though his vices make the others’ virtues more obvious – and so is Thomas Paine’s, for while he was a master propagandist and writer, he loved not America but revolution, never taking onto his narrow shoulders the lightest mantle of responsibility. The chapter on Thomas Jefferson examines him as the strange sphinx that he was, a man who preached liberty and maintained slaves, who idolized agrarianism but created a factory on his own plantation, a man who every iteration of American political thought appears to claim. In Madison’s chapter, we review his balancing act between the Federalists and the Republicans, his exercise in moderation overshadowed only by that of John Adams – who threaded a very narrow line between the Federalists and the Republicans, and between his rivals Jefferson and Hamilton. (Adams gets very short shrift in this book, being pushed towards the end between Paine and Burr, and addressed in a chapter called “The Relevance and Irrelevance of John Adams”.) Perhaps the most interesting chapter is “The Invention of Benjamin Franklin”, in which Woods argues that Franklin, for all his diplomatic importance, was not regarded with favor by most Americans during his life, was almost ignored in his death, and was only uplifted into the pantheon of The Founding Fathers afterwards, when an increasingly commercial class saw in him a figure worth celebrating – the self-made man. 

Woods writes that the founding fathers were not only relatively new to the gentry and accordingly obsessed with the idea of being proper Gentlemen — sophisticated, educated, cosmopolitan — but who had come to manhood at a time when they could do something truly unique. In an ordinary time they would have lived perfectly admirable lives, but the times presented them an opportunity to be extraordinary. They believed, with varying degrees of optimism and reserve (Jefferson and Adams presiding over those wings), that the creation of the United States would change not only the world, but humanity itself — that the creation of a genuine Republic would usher in a new stage of human development. That faith was tested and sometimes lost as these men grew older, as succeeding generations replaced them, as they realized that the human heart does not shrug off the stamp of Eden lost simply because governmental structures change. However short reality fell from their expectations, though, they were a fascinating bunch of men. I found the book quite interesting, and the author fair-minded in general. I dislike the inclusion of Burr, though, especially since John Adams is pushed into the rear with his company. Adams deserves better!

[Asa Bondeson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book drew my attention immediately at Barnes and Nobles honestly simply due to the title. I have always had a fascination with the founding fathers, and this seemed like a perfect book to give an overview of most of them. This book covers Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Maddison, Hamilton, Franklin, Burr and Paine. The basic point is why are these men different? Why has history constantly been retelling these specific men’s stories? Why were these men, as opposed to others, the ones who stuck out so much in such a significant time period in history. Each chapter is dedicated to a different founding father and tries to outline what was specifically unique about each, and how each of them contributed to the overall American experiment. The book starts off by explaining the surrounding culture of the enlightenment that led to the formation of such kinds of men. The idea is that all men aspired to be “gentlemen”. Men who reached a certain point of success in life, who then no longer had to work for a living, and then could commit their time to intellectual pursuits and public service. That since America did not have the rigid class system as found in England based on hereditary, they supplemented this by a class system based on merit. That the founding Fathers were meritocratic to their core is one of the key points the author sets out to prove. The founding fathers believed that only the members of “the learned profession” should be the individuals who hold public office, since they are the only ones with the ability to devote their full attention to it, since they no longer work, and because they are the most learned of their peers. Because of this surrounding culture in the American colonies, these men were in the prime position to make an impact on the culture during and after the revolution. However, because they were able to create something unheard of in history at the time, a constitutional republic, they were in a rather ironic situation. The form of government that they fought violently for was the exact source of the demise of their kind. This new government allowed anyone, no matter where in society they were located, to become elected by their peers to public office. Thus, members of the so-called “learned profession” no longer had a monopoly on public service. Therefore, the caliber of men that the revolution produced was a direct result of the surrounding culture of the so-called “gentleman”. “In the end, nothing illustrates better the transforming power of the American Revolution, than the way its intellectual and political leaders, that remarkable group of men, contributed to their own demise.” Regarding Washington specifically, the author says, “He was an extraordinary man who made it possible for ordinary men to rule.”

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gordon S. Wood’s book on the founders of the United States presents a series of biographical sketches compiled from a selection of his published works. He uses both previously written articles as well as books he has written and condensed them for this compilation. The chapters examine the expected “Characters” like Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and Adams. Wood also discusses the relevance of men like Thomas Paine and Aaron Burr in their relation to the founders in the last two chapters respectively. Wood attempts to counter the prevailing view of historians who in the nation’s first century attempted to deify the founders. At the same time he opposes the efforts of historians in the last century who have tried to debunk and dehumanize these great men. More specifically Wood points to a tendency in the last forty years by some scholars to impose current social and political objectives on the founders. These men were not infallible demigods, nor were they insignificant failures. Each chapter is written to aid the reader in observing the founders as their contemporaries would have observed them. Wood reveals their characters by their actions and by the responses of their fellow political leaders, foreign dignitaries and their families. Wood’s stated purpose for compiling the book is not to glorify the founders, but to better understand them. To identify the traits that made them especially equipped for the events they found themselves is his aim. Wood succeeds in his attempt by creating a fascinating tapestry of these Characters’ characters.
Wood’s, Revolutionary Characters, is a series of biographies of the founders of the United States. As a professor of history at Brown University, Wood has written extensively on the events surrounding the birth of the United States. He distills many of his previous works into this single, topical volume. In the first chapter, “The Greatness of George Washington”, Wood paints a very human picture of the first president despite the chapter’s title. Washington’s tenure as a leader in the military is discussed. The author then directs the readers attention to George Washington’s greatest contributions to the fledgling nation. Washington’s willingness to hand over his sword to Congress following the end of the conflict with Britain made him unlike so many other leaders of great military conquests. Wood argues that this was his most noteworthy action and example of his character. Many expected Washington to parlay his military accomplishment into political gain. Wood details the inner turmoil that Washington experienced when he was again called upon to join and to lend credibility to the Congress’ Constitutional Convention, over which he eventually presided. Washington is presented as one who was selfless. He was only persuaded to return to public life when it became clear that without him, the young republic might fall. This example of a gentleman whose most noble attribute was that of his “disinterestedness” serves as a benchmark against which all other biographies in the book are measured.
With Washington established as the cornerstone on which the country was to be built and held together, Wood moves through the other characters’ lives with equal detail. Wood discusses how each man related to Washington and how each man compared to him as well. The following chapters are, at the same time, self contained biographies. The author explains misconceptions about many of the men who are very distant from us today. These mens’ actions and thoughts are clarified and explained in the context of the time in which they occurred. Again, the tone of the work is one of understanding the founders as their contemporaries would have. Wood humanizes each man and shows their strengths and weaknesses. Wood follows the intellectual shift that began in Washington toward the end of his life regarding his slaves and slavery as a “peculiar institution”. Without imposing today’s realizations about slavery on Washington, Wood manages to provide a fair and understanding view of this issue in the context of early America.
The remaining quarter of the Wood’s work consists of an epilogue, extensive notes and an index. The epilogue of the book is a capstone essay titled “The Founders and the Creation of Modern Public Opinion”. In this essay, Wood explains the transformation of the ruling class from a quasi-aristocracy to one in which many more common men began to participate. Modernization that spread through the country spawned by technology and increased newspaper circulation and readership contributed to the nation’s increasing democratization. Communication between the governors and the governed became, for the first time, bi-directional. Public opinion was beginning to take a more prominent role in the affairs of government. Wood points to this time, beginning with Adams’ presidency, as when public opinion began to affect substantial change. Wood concludes that the founders were surprised by this democratization that he attributes primarily to their own actions.
Gordon S. Wood delivers a fascinating look at the character of these men whom we thought we knew. The book avoids excessive analysis of the events surrounding these men. Wood stays on the topic of each man’s character throughout the book. Each chapter is written from the perspective of each individual founder and their reaction to events guided by their character. Wood is most eloquent when he pauses to explain to the reader the nuances of eighteenth-century Anglo-American society and customs to clarify the otherwise unfamiliar behavior or thoughts of these men. While each biography is self contained in each chapter, the relationship of these men to each other is clearly defined. Taken individually, the chapters in the book are interesting and illuminating. However, due to Wood’s use of his previously published material for each biography, there are occasions that a founder is attributed the same quote in more than one chapter and not always in the same context. While some chapters are distillations of academic papers Wood has written and others are distillations of entire books, the depth of detail is not consistent throughout. Wood acknowledges the origins of each chapter in his notes and he is forthright with this information in the preface of the book.
Wood’s Revolutionary Characters, What Made the Founders Different, is worth considering for anyone interested in the founders. It should especially be read by those who are discouraged by the many attempts to debunk the founders and their accomplishments. Those wishing to familiarize themselves with the humanity of the founders will also gain from reading this book.