What do you think?
Rate this book
Origins and Ideologies of the American Revolution
The years between 1760 and 1800 rocked the Western world. These were the years when colonists on the eastern fringes of a continent converted the ideals of Enlightenment thought first into action, then into an actual form of government.
Now you can learn why this happened and how the colonists did it - in a series of 48 insightful lectures from an award-winning teacher and author.
Professor Mancall brings to life not only the famous but also the little-remembered colonists who were caught up in the debates over rights and power, liberties and empire. It is a story of immense importance and rich discoveries. And because he presents original source materials, including examples of how events were reported and interpreted, you'll more readily grasp the evolution of ideas, the competing pressures, and the misunderstandings - not only in the time leading up to the Revolution, and during the years it was being fought, but afterwards, as well.
That's when the victorious colonists came to learn that in achieving freedom from Great Britain, they had simply traded one set of problems for another. They still had to cope with the extraordinarily difficult task of crafting a workable government - one that could support their ideals of how citizens and government should relate to each other - and achieving respect and success among other nations.
Now you can learn why this happened and how the colonists did it - in a series of 48 insightful lectures from an award-winning teacher and author.
Professor Mancall brings to life not only the famous but also the little-remembered colonists who were caught up in the debates over rights and power, liberties and empire. It is a story of immense importance and rich discoveries. And because he presents original source materials, including examples of how events were reported and interpreted, you'll more readily grasp the evolution of ideas, the competing pressures, and the misunderstandings - not only in the time leading up to the Revolution, and during the years it was being fought, but afterwards, as well.
That's when the victorious colonists came to learn that in achieving freedom from Great Britain, they had simply traded one set of problems for another. They still had to cope with the extraordinarily difficult task of crafting a workable government - one that could support their ideals of how citizens and government should relate to each other - and achieving respect and success among other nations.
25 pages, Audio CD
First published January 1, 2006
2 people are currently reading
87 people want to read
About the author
Peter C. Mancall
31 books16 followersA 1981 graduate of Oberlin college, Peter Mancall attended graduate school at Harvard University, where he received a Ph.D. in history in 1986. Mancall was a visiting Assistant Professor of History at Connecticut College from 1986 to 1987. After teaching as a Lecturer on History and Literature at Harvard for two years, he took a position at the University of Kansas in 1989. In 2001, Mancall took a position at the University of Southern California, where he helped to create the USC-Huntington Early Modern Studies Institute in 2003, becoming its first director. He has served on the editorial board of several journals, and from 2007 to 2009 he was Associate Vice Provost for Research Advancement at the University of Southern California.
Mancall has written five books and edited eight others, and written around forty book reviews in such journals as American Historical Review, Journal of American History, Journal of Economic History, Journal of the Early Republic, and many others. His newest book, Fatal Journey: The Final Expedition of Henry Hudson—A Tale of Mutiny and Murder in the Arctic was published by Basic Books on June 9, 2009. Mancall has accepted an offer to write Volume 1 of the Oxford History of the United States series covering American colonial history to c. 1680.
~from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_C....
Mancall has written five books and edited eight others, and written around forty book reviews in such journals as American Historical Review, Journal of American History, Journal of Economic History, Journal of the Early Republic, and many others. His newest book, Fatal Journey: The Final Expedition of Henry Hudson—A Tale of Mutiny and Murder in the Arctic was published by Basic Books on June 9, 2009. Mancall has accepted an offer to write Volume 1 of the Oxford History of the United States series covering American colonial history to c. 1680.
~from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_C....
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
September 6, 2018
Part One:
As someone who is no stranger to listening to Great Courses cds while driving, I am also no stranger to thinking about the origins and ideology of the American Revolution [1], which this course is about. Admittedly, I am at least somewhat on the fence about whether the teacher is my cup of tea, because he seems to have views that are far different from my own about the importance of the mindset of the Founding Fathers in understanding contemporary politics. In particular, he appears somewhat tone deaf about not understanding the offensiveness of crony capitalism when it comes to political dealings, nor fully convinced of the limitations inherent in government. In short, the teacher appears to be a progressive in many ways, which makes him less than ideal as a teacher of anything, especially something involving politics and ideology as this course does. Even so, despite my concerns about the professor's lack of intellectual fitness as a result of worldview error, the course is something that is still interesting because so far at least the professor has managed to check his own defective politics and focus mostly on the history.
In the first six hours of the lectures, we have been treated to an introductory lecture on self-evident truths that reveals the problematic nature of the professor's own political beliefs (1), and then a discussion on ideas and ideologies on a more general level, giving some deserved praise to Bailyn for his own research in that area (2). After this comes a discussion about the Europeans of colonial America (3) and the natives and slaves of colonial America (4), which is further evidence of the author's political bent. There is a discussion of the place of the colonies in the Atlantic world around 1750 (5) and a lecture on the Seven Years' War (6). After this comes a discussion of the British constitution (7) and George III's role in the politics of empire (8). By this point the author has begun his discussion into the period of crisis that took place in the decade or so before the start of the revolution. This continues with the remaining lectures, which focus on politics in British America before 1760 (9), James Otis and his role in the writs of assistance case (10), the search for order and revenue in British attempts to tax the colonists after the French & Indian War (11), and the Stamp Act and the resulting rebellion in the streets of the American colonies (12).
Regardless of what you think about the professor and his own views, this section of the course is certainly an interesting one. For one, it reveals the massive gulf that often exists between elites and grass roots levels within nations, a problem that was certainly the case in 18th century Britain and one that remains problematic in the contemporary United States and other nations. On the one hand, this course reveals a presumptuousness on the part of colonial administrators in London and Parliament who saw no limitations on the power of government--a problem one sees in contemporary leftists like the kind the professor would likely support. On the other hand, we see the colonial response, nurtured by generations of reading about liberty and the corruption of governments and the practical experience of working in participatory government, was one that I can entirely understand being applicable with regard to contemporary big governments around the world. The professor seems caught between being at least a somewhat patriotic American and being someone who does not want to fully accept the legitimacy of the admittedly paranoid colonial response, a response that is still instinctual within Americans such as myself when dealing even with our own governments. Likely many listeners will be caught as well between a desire to understand the past and a painful recognition of its implications for the present and future.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
Part Two:
I must admit that I found this particular part of the course to be rather compelling. In particular, I am fascinated about situations where communication and trust break down, and where what seems like entirely logical and rational behavior to one side of a dispute ends up provoking a response that is entirely unexpected and that takes an existing crisis to a whole new level. And this particular part of the course on the American Revolution looks at that problem in some detail, one I often think about [1]. In the period shortly before the American Revolution we have a classic case of what happens when people who fancy themselves to be in authority completely fail to grasp what is dividing them from people who are estranged from them, and the thousands of miles between them did not make matters any easier. Indeed, the path from riots and political protest over early taxation efforts and lawsuits against novel laws moved into more violence in a rather predictable fashion, although few among the advisers to George III appear to have really understood what was at the grasp of the colonial issue with British efforts to increase control and revenue without addressing concerns of legitimacy and self-government.
The lectures of part two of this course begin with the way Parliament dug in its heels in the aftermath of the Stamp Act failure through the Declaratory Act which unwisely and incorrectly claimed that Parliament had the right to bind the colonists in all things whatsoever and in the Townsend duties (13), moving on to the crisis of representation that ensured that the colonists could not and would never be effectively represented in Parliament (14), and the logic of loyalty and resistance that played itself out in the late 1760's (15). After this comes a look at Franklin's search for reconciliation between the colonists and British government, which got him nothing but hostility from the British government for all of his troubles (16), the Boston Massacre (17), and the Tea Act (18) that was opposed in a principled and moderate manner by colonists. The professor then moves on to discuss the Boston Tea Party and the coercive acts that followed which made war more or less inevitable (19), the first Continental Congress (20), the battles at Lexington and Concord that turned a long-running hostility into an armed insurrection (21), and the Second Continental Congress and Bunker Hill (22). The lectures of this part then close with discussions of Thomas Paine and his famous pamphlet Common Sense (23) and the British seizure of New York and what it meant (24).
Between 1765 and 1775, what had been a genuine if profound misunderstanding gradually became ramped up in the face of imperial cluelessness and colonist paranoia into armed conflict where it was impossible for the two sides to give way. All of this happened before the logic of independence was seen as irrefutable by even those who had been among the colonial resistance. Even so, we may see from these lectures and the events that are portrayed in them that Parliament really did believe their own press notices and was drinking plenty of kool-aid and the fact that the paranoid oppositional politics of the colonists had elements of a self-fulfilling prophecy about them in that they saw what they expected. Perhaps more worrisome, though, is the fact that the same oppositional politics that made trust and communication so problematic in the period before the outbreak of revolution are present in our own society, where the actions of one side or another are viewed with extreme negativity and with no benefit of the doubt and where increasing rhetorical hostility leaves little room to stand down before genuine conflict erupts.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013...
Part Three:
Perhaps surprisingly, a course that talks about the origins and ideologies of the American Revolution spends little time talking about the revolution itself [1]. It is to perhaps be expected that the professor would have little knowledge or interest in matters of military history. These matters are of immense popularity, to be sure, but are not areas that are popular to academics like this one. It is revealing that the author is so interested in ideologies, as they are matters that one can play word games with. One can discuss the thought process of the English in their various strategies to win the American Revolution, or talk about the way that the weakness of the Articles of Confederation were not all bad because they included one anti-slavery act, which the professor clearly revels in, but one can tell that he does not want to deal with issues of life or death importance that cannot be argued against with mere words. As a result, this particular part of the lecture was among the most disappointing one could imagine, since talking about war without having knowledge of or interest in military history removes a great deal of the pleasure or worth of one's efforts.
The lectures in this part of the course begin with a discussion of the Declaration of Independence (25) and what was not included in it, before looking briefly at the war for New York and New Jersey (26) and the battles of Saratoga, the battles for Philadelphia, and the American experience at Valley Forge (27). The author is moving in talking about suffering soldiers and logistics but unskilled at talking about matters of tactics and operations. After that comes a look at the development of state constitution (28), Jefferson's statute in Virginia for religious freedom, which the author is a bit too sanguine about (29), and the experience of Franklin in Paris as America's chief diplomat there (30). Then there are discussions about the Articles of Confederation (31) before the author returns briefly to Yorktown and the end of the war (32). The rest of the lectures in this part of the class look at the Treaty of Paris, examining some of its notable provisions (33), the crises of the 1780s that led many Americans to despair over the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation (34), the African American experience in the Revolution (35), and the goings on and setup of the Constitutional convention (36).
It is testament to the author's lack of expertise and lack of skill in talking about matters of great importance that he makes this compelling and deeply intriguing experience of American history seem almost boring. The author spends a great deal of time talking about what the British wanted to do with their failed pincer attack in 1777 that led to defeat at Saratoga and their failed Southern strategy, but fails to talk about the American response in any great detail--perhaps the instructor assumes that listeners will already know about the genius of Greene and others. Likewise, the author pooh poohs Shay's rebellion as no big deal rather than looking at the seriousness of the problem of Congress' inability to pay what was owed to veterans of the Revolution, a continuing area of trouble in American military history, and manages to spend a significant amount of time talking about hunting rights in America's state constitutions, and how he could not believe those were about fundamental matters, which is at best a matter of tone deafness and a reminder that people should not talk about what they do not understand unless they are curious about knowing more about the importance of firearms and their fair use in American conceptions of liberty. All in all, this professor is not shrouding himself in glory with these lectures.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
Part Four:
Although in general I have been greatly disappointed by the way this course worked out and the perspective of its instructor, I found that this course ended in a place I liked much better than most of the previous material. Admittedly, I found the author's interest in ending the discussion of the origins and ideologies of the American Revolution at 1800 to be a bit puzzling, but it is easy to understand that the first peaceful transition between opposing parties in the American republic was a testament to the strength of the constitutional government, since peaceful transitions between opposing parties are not something that can be taken for granted in any representative government. The fact that the author here largely mimics Bailyn [1] and other superior historians of the politics and ideology of the American constitution and only occasionally slips into social justice warrior territory (although he still does this, sadly) makes it better than most of the rest of the work so far, and something worth appreciating as a whole. This part of the course does not exactly save the course entirely from being problematic, but at least it improves one's perspective of the material being taught.
The final twelve lectures of this lengthy course take the listener from the time just after the Constitutional Convention to the death of the founding fathers and a critical examination of their complicated legacy. This part begins with an examination of the text of the Constitution as a whole, looking at it article by article (37), before examining the antifederalist critique of the Constitution (38) and the response of the Federalists that allowed the Constitution to be passed with a commitment for a Bill of Rights to be added to it to answer the legitimate concerns of the Constitution's critics (39). After this the author talks about the Bill of Rights and Madison's efforts in shaping the many suggestions he received into a set of amendments that was dealt with in the first session of Congress (40). The author takes a breezy and somewhat superficial look at the politics of the 1790's (41), spending a great deal of time examining and criticizing the Alien & Sedition Acts (42), whose worth I could see as fairly obvious, especially living in a time such as we do at present. After that the author discussed the election of 1800 and its consequences (43) before going into leftist mode and discussing women (44) and native peoples (45) and how they fared as a result of the social changes related to the American Revolution, both of them ending up somewhat worse off, actually. After that the author discussed the limited social changes the resulted from the revolution (46) before closing with a reflection on five of the more notable members of the revolutionary generation (47) and a discussion of the complicated and important meaning of the revolution (48).
Is this a worthwhile course to take? How much you enjoy this course and get out of it will depend in large part on your own perspective. The more fond you are of social history and the dominant leftist perspective in the humanities at present, the more you will enjoy this course. The less you appreciate that perspective and its concerns with race, gender, and class, the less you will find of interest here. Given the length of the course as a whole, the book's rather shallow and slight treatment of the military history of the American Revolution was greatly disappointing. After all, solid military history is something that is justly popular with ordinary people in a way that the instructor's preoccupations are not. Ultimately, though, this was not a course prepared for ordinary and patriotic Americans with an interest in better understanding our nation's past. Instead, this was a course that was designed for whiny leftists who want to dismiss as much as possible the moral position of the founders by subjecting them to carping criticisms about their treatment of black slaves, women denied political rights, and treacherous native peoples who had picked the wrong side in the Revolution and justly paid the price for it. As is so often the case in our contemporary world, what you bring to this course will determine in large part what you get out of it. And I personally, did not get much out of it--only enjoying that which I was already fond and familiar with from the author's use of the research of far better historians than he is.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
As someone who is no stranger to listening to Great Courses cds while driving, I am also no stranger to thinking about the origins and ideology of the American Revolution [1], which this course is about. Admittedly, I am at least somewhat on the fence about whether the teacher is my cup of tea, because he seems to have views that are far different from my own about the importance of the mindset of the Founding Fathers in understanding contemporary politics. In particular, he appears somewhat tone deaf about not understanding the offensiveness of crony capitalism when it comes to political dealings, nor fully convinced of the limitations inherent in government. In short, the teacher appears to be a progressive in many ways, which makes him less than ideal as a teacher of anything, especially something involving politics and ideology as this course does. Even so, despite my concerns about the professor's lack of intellectual fitness as a result of worldview error, the course is something that is still interesting because so far at least the professor has managed to check his own defective politics and focus mostly on the history.
In the first six hours of the lectures, we have been treated to an introductory lecture on self-evident truths that reveals the problematic nature of the professor's own political beliefs (1), and then a discussion on ideas and ideologies on a more general level, giving some deserved praise to Bailyn for his own research in that area (2). After this comes a discussion about the Europeans of colonial America (3) and the natives and slaves of colonial America (4), which is further evidence of the author's political bent. There is a discussion of the place of the colonies in the Atlantic world around 1750 (5) and a lecture on the Seven Years' War (6). After this comes a discussion of the British constitution (7) and George III's role in the politics of empire (8). By this point the author has begun his discussion into the period of crisis that took place in the decade or so before the start of the revolution. This continues with the remaining lectures, which focus on politics in British America before 1760 (9), James Otis and his role in the writs of assistance case (10), the search for order and revenue in British attempts to tax the colonists after the French & Indian War (11), and the Stamp Act and the resulting rebellion in the streets of the American colonies (12).
Regardless of what you think about the professor and his own views, this section of the course is certainly an interesting one. For one, it reveals the massive gulf that often exists between elites and grass roots levels within nations, a problem that was certainly the case in 18th century Britain and one that remains problematic in the contemporary United States and other nations. On the one hand, this course reveals a presumptuousness on the part of colonial administrators in London and Parliament who saw no limitations on the power of government--a problem one sees in contemporary leftists like the kind the professor would likely support. On the other hand, we see the colonial response, nurtured by generations of reading about liberty and the corruption of governments and the practical experience of working in participatory government, was one that I can entirely understand being applicable with regard to contemporary big governments around the world. The professor seems caught between being at least a somewhat patriotic American and being someone who does not want to fully accept the legitimacy of the admittedly paranoid colonial response, a response that is still instinctual within Americans such as myself when dealing even with our own governments. Likely many listeners will be caught as well between a desire to understand the past and a painful recognition of its implications for the present and future.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
Part Two:
I must admit that I found this particular part of the course to be rather compelling. In particular, I am fascinated about situations where communication and trust break down, and where what seems like entirely logical and rational behavior to one side of a dispute ends up provoking a response that is entirely unexpected and that takes an existing crisis to a whole new level. And this particular part of the course on the American Revolution looks at that problem in some detail, one I often think about [1]. In the period shortly before the American Revolution we have a classic case of what happens when people who fancy themselves to be in authority completely fail to grasp what is dividing them from people who are estranged from them, and the thousands of miles between them did not make matters any easier. Indeed, the path from riots and political protest over early taxation efforts and lawsuits against novel laws moved into more violence in a rather predictable fashion, although few among the advisers to George III appear to have really understood what was at the grasp of the colonial issue with British efforts to increase control and revenue without addressing concerns of legitimacy and self-government.
The lectures of part two of this course begin with the way Parliament dug in its heels in the aftermath of the Stamp Act failure through the Declaratory Act which unwisely and incorrectly claimed that Parliament had the right to bind the colonists in all things whatsoever and in the Townsend duties (13), moving on to the crisis of representation that ensured that the colonists could not and would never be effectively represented in Parliament (14), and the logic of loyalty and resistance that played itself out in the late 1760's (15). After this comes a look at Franklin's search for reconciliation between the colonists and British government, which got him nothing but hostility from the British government for all of his troubles (16), the Boston Massacre (17), and the Tea Act (18) that was opposed in a principled and moderate manner by colonists. The professor then moves on to discuss the Boston Tea Party and the coercive acts that followed which made war more or less inevitable (19), the first Continental Congress (20), the battles at Lexington and Concord that turned a long-running hostility into an armed insurrection (21), and the Second Continental Congress and Bunker Hill (22). The lectures of this part then close with discussions of Thomas Paine and his famous pamphlet Common Sense (23) and the British seizure of New York and what it meant (24).
Between 1765 and 1775, what had been a genuine if profound misunderstanding gradually became ramped up in the face of imperial cluelessness and colonist paranoia into armed conflict where it was impossible for the two sides to give way. All of this happened before the logic of independence was seen as irrefutable by even those who had been among the colonial resistance. Even so, we may see from these lectures and the events that are portrayed in them that Parliament really did believe their own press notices and was drinking plenty of kool-aid and the fact that the paranoid oppositional politics of the colonists had elements of a self-fulfilling prophecy about them in that they saw what they expected. Perhaps more worrisome, though, is the fact that the same oppositional politics that made trust and communication so problematic in the period before the outbreak of revolution are present in our own society, where the actions of one side or another are viewed with extreme negativity and with no benefit of the doubt and where increasing rhetorical hostility leaves little room to stand down before genuine conflict erupts.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013...
Part Three:
Perhaps surprisingly, a course that talks about the origins and ideologies of the American Revolution spends little time talking about the revolution itself [1]. It is to perhaps be expected that the professor would have little knowledge or interest in matters of military history. These matters are of immense popularity, to be sure, but are not areas that are popular to academics like this one. It is revealing that the author is so interested in ideologies, as they are matters that one can play word games with. One can discuss the thought process of the English in their various strategies to win the American Revolution, or talk about the way that the weakness of the Articles of Confederation were not all bad because they included one anti-slavery act, which the professor clearly revels in, but one can tell that he does not want to deal with issues of life or death importance that cannot be argued against with mere words. As a result, this particular part of the lecture was among the most disappointing one could imagine, since talking about war without having knowledge of or interest in military history removes a great deal of the pleasure or worth of one's efforts.
The lectures in this part of the course begin with a discussion of the Declaration of Independence (25) and what was not included in it, before looking briefly at the war for New York and New Jersey (26) and the battles of Saratoga, the battles for Philadelphia, and the American experience at Valley Forge (27). The author is moving in talking about suffering soldiers and logistics but unskilled at talking about matters of tactics and operations. After that comes a look at the development of state constitution (28), Jefferson's statute in Virginia for religious freedom, which the author is a bit too sanguine about (29), and the experience of Franklin in Paris as America's chief diplomat there (30). Then there are discussions about the Articles of Confederation (31) before the author returns briefly to Yorktown and the end of the war (32). The rest of the lectures in this part of the class look at the Treaty of Paris, examining some of its notable provisions (33), the crises of the 1780s that led many Americans to despair over the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation (34), the African American experience in the Revolution (35), and the goings on and setup of the Constitutional convention (36).
It is testament to the author's lack of expertise and lack of skill in talking about matters of great importance that he makes this compelling and deeply intriguing experience of American history seem almost boring. The author spends a great deal of time talking about what the British wanted to do with their failed pincer attack in 1777 that led to defeat at Saratoga and their failed Southern strategy, but fails to talk about the American response in any great detail--perhaps the instructor assumes that listeners will already know about the genius of Greene and others. Likewise, the author pooh poohs Shay's rebellion as no big deal rather than looking at the seriousness of the problem of Congress' inability to pay what was owed to veterans of the Revolution, a continuing area of trouble in American military history, and manages to spend a significant amount of time talking about hunting rights in America's state constitutions, and how he could not believe those were about fundamental matters, which is at best a matter of tone deafness and a reminder that people should not talk about what they do not understand unless they are curious about knowing more about the importance of firearms and their fair use in American conceptions of liberty. All in all, this professor is not shrouding himself in glory with these lectures.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
Part Four:
Although in general I have been greatly disappointed by the way this course worked out and the perspective of its instructor, I found that this course ended in a place I liked much better than most of the previous material. Admittedly, I found the author's interest in ending the discussion of the origins and ideologies of the American Revolution at 1800 to be a bit puzzling, but it is easy to understand that the first peaceful transition between opposing parties in the American republic was a testament to the strength of the constitutional government, since peaceful transitions between opposing parties are not something that can be taken for granted in any representative government. The fact that the author here largely mimics Bailyn [1] and other superior historians of the politics and ideology of the American constitution and only occasionally slips into social justice warrior territory (although he still does this, sadly) makes it better than most of the rest of the work so far, and something worth appreciating as a whole. This part of the course does not exactly save the course entirely from being problematic, but at least it improves one's perspective of the material being taught.
The final twelve lectures of this lengthy course take the listener from the time just after the Constitutional Convention to the death of the founding fathers and a critical examination of their complicated legacy. This part begins with an examination of the text of the Constitution as a whole, looking at it article by article (37), before examining the antifederalist critique of the Constitution (38) and the response of the Federalists that allowed the Constitution to be passed with a commitment for a Bill of Rights to be added to it to answer the legitimate concerns of the Constitution's critics (39). After this the author talks about the Bill of Rights and Madison's efforts in shaping the many suggestions he received into a set of amendments that was dealt with in the first session of Congress (40). The author takes a breezy and somewhat superficial look at the politics of the 1790's (41), spending a great deal of time examining and criticizing the Alien & Sedition Acts (42), whose worth I could see as fairly obvious, especially living in a time such as we do at present. After that the author discussed the election of 1800 and its consequences (43) before going into leftist mode and discussing women (44) and native peoples (45) and how they fared as a result of the social changes related to the American Revolution, both of them ending up somewhat worse off, actually. After that the author discussed the limited social changes the resulted from the revolution (46) before closing with a reflection on five of the more notable members of the revolutionary generation (47) and a discussion of the complicated and important meaning of the revolution (48).
Is this a worthwhile course to take? How much you enjoy this course and get out of it will depend in large part on your own perspective. The more fond you are of social history and the dominant leftist perspective in the humanities at present, the more you will enjoy this course. The less you appreciate that perspective and its concerns with race, gender, and class, the less you will find of interest here. Given the length of the course as a whole, the book's rather shallow and slight treatment of the military history of the American Revolution was greatly disappointing. After all, solid military history is something that is justly popular with ordinary people in a way that the instructor's preoccupations are not. Ultimately, though, this was not a course prepared for ordinary and patriotic Americans with an interest in better understanding our nation's past. Instead, this was a course that was designed for whiny leftists who want to dismiss as much as possible the moral position of the founders by subjecting them to carping criticisms about their treatment of black slaves, women denied political rights, and treacherous native peoples who had picked the wrong side in the Revolution and justly paid the price for it. As is so often the case in our contemporary world, what you bring to this course will determine in large part what you get out of it. And I personally, did not get much out of it--only enjoying that which I was already fond and familiar with from the author's use of the research of far better historians than he is.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
May 15, 2022
These lectures cover American history from colonial time to the end of the Jefferson presidency. The lectures discuss events, economic and political situations, and thoughts behind the various movements. However, the lectures do not go very deep into the ideology debates.
The lectures retrace the ideologies that drove the Declaration of Independence, the revolutionary war, the Constitution, and the Federalism during the presidency of Adams and Jefferson. The lectures focus on the most significant historical documents and explain the ideologies therein. However, the author does discuss the relevant debates and other influential thoughts not incorporated into these documents. It sounds from the lectures that at any time, there was always one dominant ideology.
Some of the ideological developments were simplified. For example, the lecture portrayed the Constitution as a consequence of the economic needs when the newly born United States needed to pay the war debts. All debates about the power distribution between Federal and States and between democracy and liberty happened afterward in the rectification process. This treatment is, to my knowledge, not accurate. There were many debates on these issues before and during the draft of the Constitution. The Constitution was also driven by the vision that the United States would encompass the entire land between the Pacific and Atlantic and need an effective central government to manage this big country. The lectures did not cover this part of the reasoning.
Most of the lectures follow the history in chronological order. However, in the end, two lectures break from this tradition and cover “women and the American Revolution” and native Americans before the three concluding lectures. It is unclear why the author selected these two topics for special discussions. I would expect racial issues to take a more prominent role.
Overall, I think these lectures are just another take on the important American historical period of the 1700s. It is not as unique as the title suggests.
The lectures retrace the ideologies that drove the Declaration of Independence, the revolutionary war, the Constitution, and the Federalism during the presidency of Adams and Jefferson. The lectures focus on the most significant historical documents and explain the ideologies therein. However, the author does discuss the relevant debates and other influential thoughts not incorporated into these documents. It sounds from the lectures that at any time, there was always one dominant ideology.
Some of the ideological developments were simplified. For example, the lecture portrayed the Constitution as a consequence of the economic needs when the newly born United States needed to pay the war debts. All debates about the power distribution between Federal and States and between democracy and liberty happened afterward in the rectification process. This treatment is, to my knowledge, not accurate. There were many debates on these issues before and during the draft of the Constitution. The Constitution was also driven by the vision that the United States would encompass the entire land between the Pacific and Atlantic and need an effective central government to manage this big country. The lectures did not cover this part of the reasoning.
Most of the lectures follow the history in chronological order. However, in the end, two lectures break from this tradition and cover “women and the American Revolution” and native Americans before the three concluding lectures. It is unclear why the author selected these two topics for special discussions. I would expect racial issues to take a more prominent role.
Overall, I think these lectures are just another take on the important American historical period of the 1700s. It is not as unique as the title suggests.
May 1, 2022
Good Information. So-So speaker.
February 2, 2017
The professor spends most of every lecture reading from primary sources. While this is excellent historianship, for myself, I didn't find it an enjoyable listening experience. I found it hard to focus and follow 18th century legal jargon. It didn't help that the lecturer has a peculiar speaking quirk in which his speaking speed gradually sped up until it was almost unintelligible at some points. To be completely fair, because the professor uses primary sources extensively, this is a very historically accurate and well researched course. Anyone who doesn't mind listening to 18th century primary sources should enjoy this.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews