What do you think?
Rate this book
Early American Studies
Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic
The Seneca Falls Convention is typically seen as the beginning of the first women's rights movement in the United States. Revolutionary Backlash argues otherwise. According to Rosemarie Zagarri, the debate over women's rights began not in the decades prior to 1848 but during the American Revolution itself. Integrating the approaches of women's historians and political historians, this book explores changes in women's status that occurred from the time of the American Revolution until the election of Andrew Jackson.
Although the period after the Revolution produced no collective movement for women's rights, women built on precedents established during the Revolution and gained an informal foothold in party politics and male electoral activities. Federalists and Jeffersonians vied for women's allegiance and sought their support in times of national crisis. Women, in turn, attended rallies, organized political activities, and voiced their opinions on the issues of the day. After the publication of Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman , a widespread debate about the nature of women's rights ensued. The state of New Jersey attempted a bold for a brief time, women there voted on the same terms as men.
Yet as Rosemarie Zagarri argues in Revolutionary Backlash , this opening for women soon closed. By 1828, women's politicization was seen more as a liability than as a strength, contributing to a divisive political climate that repeatedly brought the country to the brink of civil war. The increasing sophistication of party organizations and triumph of universal suffrage for white males marginalized those who could not vote, especially women. Yet all was not lost. Women had already begun to participate in charitable movements, benevolent societies, and social reform organizations. Through these organizations, women found another way to practice politics.
Although the period after the Revolution produced no collective movement for women's rights, women built on precedents established during the Revolution and gained an informal foothold in party politics and male electoral activities. Federalists and Jeffersonians vied for women's allegiance and sought their support in times of national crisis. Women, in turn, attended rallies, organized political activities, and voiced their opinions on the issues of the day. After the publication of Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman , a widespread debate about the nature of women's rights ensued. The state of New Jersey attempted a bold for a brief time, women there voted on the same terms as men.
Yet as Rosemarie Zagarri argues in Revolutionary Backlash , this opening for women soon closed. By 1828, women's politicization was seen more as a liability than as a strength, contributing to a divisive political climate that repeatedly brought the country to the brink of civil war. The increasing sophistication of party organizations and triumph of universal suffrage for white males marginalized those who could not vote, especially women. Yet all was not lost. Women had already begun to participate in charitable movements, benevolent societies, and social reform organizations. Through these organizations, women found another way to practice politics.
248 pages, Paperback
First published September 19, 2007
21 people are currently reading
296 people want to read
About the author
Rosemarie Zagarri
11 books7 followersRosemarie Zagarri is University Professor and professor of history at George Mason University. A specialist in early American history, she received her Ph.D. from Yale University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
May 13, 2025
This book totally reframed my understanding of the development of women's rights in the United States. Specifically, it shows how American men in the two or three decades after independence toyed with the idea of encouraging women's participation in politics before a "backlash" that shut the door on women voting for another 100 years. Zagarri offers several compelling reasons for this backlash in the 1820s and 1830s. Highly recommend.
October 6, 2014
Zagarri's book focuses on a broad "moment" of women's participation in politics during and after the American Revolution. Zagarri wants to bring together women's history and political history, which are usually seen as separate in early US history. The book covers a recurring issue in early US history: How did American revolutionaries deal with the implications of their own beliefs and actions for the oppressed and disenfranchised in their own societies? Revolutionary Backlash provides a readable and fascinating response for this question in regards to American women.
Zagarri divides conceptions of American women in the early republic into republican mothers and female politicians. The ideal woman was the republican mother. While this woman might participate in politics to some extent, her main political role was to embody republican virtue, take care of the home, and impart proper political views and patriotism unto her children. In contrast, female politicians were independent actors who tried to influence politics directly and agitated for expanded women's rights. Revolutionaries had to activate women's help for the Revolution, but they also had to deal with the contradiction of calling for rights while justifying denying them to women. John Adams' recognition of the essentially arbitrary subjection of women is particularly revealing. He couldn't really explain why women had to be second class citizens other than stating that their empowerment would upset the entire social order.
Many people saw female politicians as a threat to the gender and social hierarchies, as well as "bad women." Enlightenment philosophies like John Locke and Mary Wollstonecraft's views that men and women had basically the same intellectual capacities empowered female politicians in American society. Moreover, in conjectural history, many philosopher stated that a sign of advancement for societies was how they treated and empowered women, giving many a desire to elevate women's status.
As partisanship reached insane heights in the early 19th century, many men found a new role for the republican mother that would simultaneously discredit the female politician. Many people feared that partisanship was literally tearing the country apart, so a new ideal developed which said that women could mitigate partisan tensions by acting as mediators, imparting patriotism and openness to their children, and avoiding public/partisan political activity. Women suffered further political disempowerment as American politics became more about formal party politics rather than politics "out of doors," which was far more unstructured and open to female participation. These developments coincided with the growth of essentialist views of male and female natures which stated that women were naturally unsuited to politics. All men were drawn into Jacksonian politics while all women were pushed out. Nevertheless, women did not simply stop participating in semi-political activities. As they were shut out of mainstream politics, they increasingly turned to social activism on issues like slavery, prostitution, poverty, and temperance. They consequently remained active in political issues, just not through the conventional party apparatus.
One of the main points in this book is that women's rights activism goes back much further than Seneca Falls and that the conservative male backlash, while partially successful in keeping the revolutionary genie in the bottle, did not permanently halt the progress of women's rights. This is an empowering message in a fascinating and concise book.
Zagarri divides conceptions of American women in the early republic into republican mothers and female politicians. The ideal woman was the republican mother. While this woman might participate in politics to some extent, her main political role was to embody republican virtue, take care of the home, and impart proper political views and patriotism unto her children. In contrast, female politicians were independent actors who tried to influence politics directly and agitated for expanded women's rights. Revolutionaries had to activate women's help for the Revolution, but they also had to deal with the contradiction of calling for rights while justifying denying them to women. John Adams' recognition of the essentially arbitrary subjection of women is particularly revealing. He couldn't really explain why women had to be second class citizens other than stating that their empowerment would upset the entire social order.
Many people saw female politicians as a threat to the gender and social hierarchies, as well as "bad women." Enlightenment philosophies like John Locke and Mary Wollstonecraft's views that men and women had basically the same intellectual capacities empowered female politicians in American society. Moreover, in conjectural history, many philosopher stated that a sign of advancement for societies was how they treated and empowered women, giving many a desire to elevate women's status.
As partisanship reached insane heights in the early 19th century, many men found a new role for the republican mother that would simultaneously discredit the female politician. Many people feared that partisanship was literally tearing the country apart, so a new ideal developed which said that women could mitigate partisan tensions by acting as mediators, imparting patriotism and openness to their children, and avoiding public/partisan political activity. Women suffered further political disempowerment as American politics became more about formal party politics rather than politics "out of doors," which was far more unstructured and open to female participation. These developments coincided with the growth of essentialist views of male and female natures which stated that women were naturally unsuited to politics. All men were drawn into Jacksonian politics while all women were pushed out. Nevertheless, women did not simply stop participating in semi-political activities. As they were shut out of mainstream politics, they increasingly turned to social activism on issues like slavery, prostitution, poverty, and temperance. They consequently remained active in political issues, just not through the conventional party apparatus.
One of the main points in this book is that women's rights activism goes back much further than Seneca Falls and that the conservative male backlash, while partially successful in keeping the revolutionary genie in the bottle, did not permanently halt the progress of women's rights. This is an empowering message in a fascinating and concise book.
March 22, 2010
This provides a much needed explanation about what happened to women in the years after the American Revolution in terms of their public political life. Turns out that men and women did note the hypocrisy of fighting a war for freedom from oppression and yet restricting women's rights (and black rights). Property-owning women in New Jersey could vote in the early years of the 19th century. How about that? The premise of the book is that during these years, voting per se was not the most important way -- and certainly not the only way -- that citizens could have a public voice. Zagarri argues that with the rise of political parties and all of the shenanigans that go with that -- by the 1820s voting became more specifically tied to citizenship and as it expanded to include all white men (property owning or not), it increasingly restricted voting based on sex and race. Women more and more used other forms of activism to contribute to the success of the nation -- orphanages, moral reform, temperance, church work -- and became more absent from what we have come to see as forms of political activism -- the stuff that guys do. In addition to using pamphlets and books of the period, Zagarri uses paintings and drawings to make her point about the increased absence of women from scenes depicting political activity.
March 7, 2018
An incredible survey on the history of women in the American Revolution and Early American Republic period, hitting all of the greatest hits (Abigail Adams, Mary Wollstonecraft, Mercy Otis Warren, Judith Sargent Murray) while also providing new scholarship. She concludes her monograph with "the American Revolution did not eliminate all social hierarchy; it reconfigured the character of that hierarchy. In place of birth and wealth (English standards), supposedly inherent bodily characteristics became the most salient markers of difference and created the basis for social and political exclusion." (185) The United States was not more or less politically and socially stratified than their previous empire's example - it simply used different strata.
May 30, 2018
At first, I thought this book looked a little annoying. I found it fascinating and hard to put down at times. I never knew there was so much controversy and struggle for women in politics after the Revolutionary War. I enjoyed learning how women influenced the political landscape without holding office. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is looking to have a better understanding of politics after the Revolutionary War.
June 4, 2022
作者：Edmund Morgan的关门弟子。在乔治·梅森大学任教。
殖民地时期至内战前的女性史。
三个核心：美国革命是否改变了女性生活，权力？是否缩小了，为什么缩小？人人平等的理想与排除在外的现实。
女性政治权利
政治：亚里士多德，城邦。指精英创造的政治制度。美国女性没有政治权力；1970-1980年新政治史，扩展了政治活动，把殖民地女性纳入政治范围；一切不平等的关系都属于权力博弈。本书中性的定义，不是一切政治权力关系。
1930-1940年进步主义史学，强调经济黄金时代，1920年提出，1940年发展完善。前工业时代女性地位较高，自由选择职业，婚姻，比英国和后来的美国女性有更高的自由和地位；1950年，共识学派、新左派等，价值观、政治文化、边缘群体纳入考量，强调共和母亲，强调政治思想，女性参与是次要参与，强调家庭里的母亲，而非反抗者，革命的创造者；修正了共和母亲，启蒙运动有很多女性权力的观念，女性参与了政治活动。
启蒙时代挑战了女性智力低下的观点，后天习惯导致了智力差异，本质上男女智力没有差异，上层女性可以接触政治人物，写小册子，革命后进一步打开了政治参与的可能性。女性是否有政治权力有争议，不断流动的美国革命政治思想。政治诗歌，两性的共同努力，法国大革命后的公共活动凝结了国族。女性是无私公正的爱国者，美利坚开放包容的政治。
1920年才有女性选举权。
导致妇女政治权力缩小的因素：从共和主义到自由主义范式。社会性别契约理论，推翻旧的父权制体制，父亲与儿子之间的关系改变了，女性仍从属于男性，男性平等分享控制女性。新共和国建立后，母亲与妻子地位提高。义务和权利（科尔伯）。
两党政治斗争、法国大革命引起政治动荡，女性需回到家庭。两党都不希望把选举权赋予妇女和黑人。用话语攻击女性。调和政治平衡，
杰克逊时代男性政治平等：进步主义学派、理查德·霍夫施塔特（共识学派）、怀旧运动（意识形态）。性别史认识，财产权之外，什么是选举权的标准。环境主义、生物本质主义、无可比性的差异。杰克逊时代建立了新的政治阶级差异。
革命的反弹，法国是革命和战争，美国是社会和文化，温和的。政治排斥的合理化。
讨论：
美国史学界的女性史家特别多，活跃。1960年以来，历史学博士、任教。
公民身份
鲁迪秋：梳理思路，导言，每一章的总结。核心问题，革命到1830年有很大的反差，女性参与政治、渠道，到要求退出政治。自己的解答，保守的回潮，“革命的反冲”，政治、制度、社会、文化。选举权在男性普及，从基于财产的转变。妇女政治选举的边缘化，剥夺政治权力的合理性。进步的民主化进程，以女性和黑人为代价。美国革命如何开启新的政治前景，“女性政治家”（chap 1—3）；政治回潮被要求退回家庭，共和母亲；从鼓励女性到要求女性退出的政治文化。使用材料，除了政治史外，还用了小说、讽刺文学、独立日演说、图像资料。比较建国初期两幅政治选举场景，对比分析。把政治史与女性史结合起来，把女性史置于政治文化、政治制度和社会观念之中。更新了女性史、政治权力的关系。女性史怎么写，避免就女性谈女性。
李老师的疑问：Revolutionary Backlash，立论的漏洞：
革命激发了女性政治参与的热情，在自然权利学说引领下，妇女积极参与政治，成为社会的政治成员，革命后延续下来了，女性非常活跃，革命是顺推力，组织化，即有组织的政治活动，党派政治兴起后，主动参与，投入热情，有教育、修养、闲暇。政治进一步大众化，加入庆典，女性投入公共事务、兴趣，男性强调社会分工（生物学本质主义），这并非革命的倒退，把革命泛化了。
1820-1830年，男性认为应该回到家庭，与男性政治民主化的巨大反差，回到家庭的呼声要求反差太大。女性参与政治活动，结社，参与其他活动越来越多，社会兴趣空前增加，拓宽了参与的社会渠道。是革命的后果，而不是backlash。
“美国革命的热月反应”：美国革命结束时间，立宪1788-1789年。1820-1830年，政治参与的压缩，隔了一代人。
苏格兰启蒙思想：很大的局限性，把苏格兰启蒙运动，用休谟代替了其他，自然权利，弗格森、亚当·斯密等，改造了洛克的理论，不否定权利来自人的天性；休谟，经验主义者，权利通过社会、习惯获得，不是天生、普遍的，要承担义务及能力，才有自然权利，自然权利是立不住的。
革命时期就有把权力、责任、义务等结合起来，一直都有。意识到了悖论，化解悖论，自由是人的自然权利，但是谁能享有自由，只有承担责任的人才能享有自由。自由的享有者是有责任的。Furgetengburg讲透了这个问题。精英革命理论一脉相承，不是简单用休谟的理论。
美国与苏格兰经验主义相契合，统治者思维；洛克的激进主义者，边缘群体。男性、中产，排斥女性的政治参与，不稳固的群体强调自然权利。
革命后女性地位改变、境况改善，教育，革命把女性的教育提到了很重要的地位。虽然不是公共参与者，但是是美德的培育的重要途径。女性教育的读物越来越多，女性的写作活动越来越活跃。公共参与有起有伏，不能孤立看待。
鲁迪秋：界定政治的前后不一致。女性史学家、政治史学家拓展政治的“内涵”，写作思考、政治观念外，纪念活动等纳入。最宽泛的解释，所有不平等的行为。用“公民社会”的观念。但是整书使用不同的定义。
短还是长时段，1830年，回归家庭，革命打开的机会被重新关闭；内战前，1820-1840年禁酒、废奴社团兴起，妇女形成了公民意识。这样看，仍然是更积极的。
2007年出版，在美国很多期刊有高度评价，当时1980年科尔伯和诺顿的书仍是经典，辉格主义叙事。Zagari提出曾有回潮，曾经被关闭过。在女性政治活动参与中有意义。
蔡萌：各方面核心内容，在其他领域都被写过。妇女史的开拓前景。
雷柏云：跨大西洋史视角、社会史（少数族裔婚姻）。
政治史的意义。
李老师：科尔伯、诺顿集中在革命时期，有一些预言，Zagari提供了反证，在革命开创的女性史研��，开会讨论是否给女性选举权，作为一种权利，Zagari认为有一种断裂，综合叙事的特点。前四章为第五章做铺垫，创建。革命不仅有进步，也有反冲。
研究视角有自己的考虑，不是单纯的妇女史，把政治史、社会史、性别史结合在一起。超脱了妇女史，不仅单纯的妇女政治参与，要揭露美国革命另一半人在民主的参与提供了视角，反衬Sean Wilenz。政治参与的复杂性。
方法论，三种政治的界定，早期政治、女性经历，把概念作为方法，用概念作为方法。考虑当时人的政治概念，1820-1830年的退出政治，是当时人所 理解的政治，生理不适合，不是civil society、公众活动，概念上不矛盾。总体上不是backlash，社会参与程度在扩大。
写作非常清晰，一目了然。
空间代表制（Public Space），思想史传统贯彻。公共意见、舆论气候。
意识形态取向比较温和，不是激愤的女性主义者，比较中立。历史学家处理材料冷静、细致，优秀史家。
存在问题：研究妇女的经历，材料少，有局限，过度诠释，小说文本，小说人物对话作为核心证据，而非旁证，说服力不够。第一幅画，黑人女性在地上看科技，解释为美国革命给女性和黑人都带来了改变，本身自由女神无性别，是希腊罗马传统，而非女性，更多是说黑人。与性别无关，特别是与革命时期的性别观念无关。
写文章首先要写清楚，清晰准确、有分寸感表达出来。先想清楚，写出来，表达出来。思考、语言、表达：清楚、准确、分寸感。
殖民地时期至内战前的女性史。
三个核心：美国革命是否改变了女性生活，权力？是否缩小了，为什么缩小？人人平等的理想与排除在外的现实。
女性政治权利
政治：亚里士多德，城邦。指精英创造的政治制度。美国女性没有政治权力；1970-1980年新政治史，扩展了政治活动，把殖民地女性纳入政治范围；一切不平等的关系都属于权力博弈。本书中性的定义，不是一切政治权力关系。
1930-1940年进步主义史学，强调经济黄金时代，1920年提出，1940年发展完善。前工业时代女性地位较高，自由选择职业，婚姻，比英国和后来的美国女性有更高的自由和地位；1950年，共识学派、新左派等，价值观、政治文化、边缘群体纳入考量，强调共和母亲，强调政治思想，女性参与是次要参与，强调家庭里的母亲，而非反抗者，革命的创造者；修正了共和母亲，启蒙运动有很多女性权力的观念，女性参与了政治活动。
启蒙时代挑战了女性智力低下的观点，后天习惯导致了智力差异，本质上男女智力没有差异，上层女性可以接触政治人物，写小册子，革命后进一步打开了政治参与的可能性。女性是否有政治权力有争议，不断流动的美国革命政治思想。政治诗歌，两性的共同努力，法国大革命后的公共活动凝结了国族。女性是无私公正的爱国者，美利坚开放包容的政治。
1920年才有女性选举权。
导致妇女政治权力缩小的因素：从共和主义到自由主义范式。社会性别契约理论，推翻旧的父权制体制，父亲与儿子之间的关系改变了，女性仍从属于男性，男性平等分享控制女性。新共和国建立后，母亲与妻子地位提高。义务和权利（科尔伯）。
两党政治斗争、法国大革命引起政治动荡，女性需回到家庭。两党都不希望把选举权赋予妇女和黑人。用话语攻击女性。调和政治平衡，
杰克逊时代男性政治平等：进步主义学派、理查德·霍夫施塔特（共识学派）、怀旧运动（意识形态）。性别史认识，财产权之外，什么是选举权的标准。环境主义、生物本质主义、无可比性的差异。杰克逊时代建立了新的政治阶级差异。
革命的反弹，法国是革命和战争，美国是社会和文化，温和的。政治排斥的合理化。
讨论：
美国史学界的女性史家特别多，活跃。1960年以来，历史学博士、任教。
公民身份
鲁迪秋：梳理思路，导言，每一章的总结。核心问题，革命到1830年有很大的反差，女性参与政治、渠道，到要求退出政治。自己的解答，保守的回潮，“革命的反冲”，政治、制度、社会、文化。选举权在男性普及，从基于财产的转变。妇女政治选举的边缘化，剥夺政治权力的合理性。进步的民主化进程，以女性和黑人为代价。美国革命如何开启新的政治前景，“女性政治家”（chap 1—3）；政治回潮被要求退回家庭，共和母亲；从鼓励女性到要求女性退出的政治文化。使用材料，除了政治史外，还用了小说、讽刺文学、独立日演说、图像资料。比较建国初期两幅政治选举场景，对比分析。把政治史与女性史结合起来，把女性史置于政治文化、政治制度和社会观念之中。更新了女性史、政治权力的关系。女性史怎么写，避免就女性谈女性。
李老师的疑问：Revolutionary Backlash，立论的漏洞：
革命激发了女性政治参与的热情，在自然权利学说引领下，妇女积极参与政治，成为社会的政治成员，革命后延续下来了，女性非常活跃，革命是顺推力，组织化，即有组织的政治活动，党派政治兴起后，主动参与，投入热情，有教育、修养、闲暇。政治进一步大众化，加入庆典，女性投入公共事务、兴趣，男性强调社会分工（生物学本质主义），这并非革命的倒退，把革命泛化了。
1820-1830年，男性认为应该回到家庭，与男性政治民主化的巨大反差，回到家庭的呼声要求反差太大。女性参与政治活动，结社，参与其他活动越来越多，社会兴趣空前增加，拓宽了参与的社会渠道。是革命的后果，而不是backlash。
“美国革命的热月反应”：美国革命结束时间，立宪1788-1789年。1820-1830年，政治参与的压缩，隔了一代人。
苏格兰启蒙思想：很大的局限性，把苏格兰启蒙运动，用休谟代替了其他，自然权利，弗格森、亚当·斯密等，改造了洛克的理论，不否定权利来自人的天性；休谟，经验主义者，权利通过社会、习惯获得，不是天生、普遍的，要承担义务及能力，才有自然权利，自然权利是立不住的。
革命时期就有把权力、责任、义务等结合起来，一直都有。意识到了悖论，化解悖论，自由是人的自然权利，但是谁能享有自由，只有承担责任的人才能享有自由。自由的享有者是有责任的。Furgetengburg讲透了这个问题。精英革命理论一脉相承，不是简单用休谟的理论。
美国与苏格兰经验主义相契合，统治者思维；洛克的激进主义者，边缘群体。男性、中产，排斥女性的政治参与，不稳固的群体强调自然权利。
革命后女性地位改变、境况改善，教育，革命把女性的教育提到了很重要的地位。虽然不是公共参与者，但是是美德的培育的重要途径。女性教育的读物越来越多，女性的写作活动越来越活跃。公共参与有起有伏，不能孤立看待。
鲁迪秋：界定政治的前后不一致。女性史学家、政治史学家拓展政治的“内涵”，写作思考、政治观念外，纪念活动等纳入。最宽泛的解释，所有不平等的行为。用“公民社会”的观念。但是整书使用不同的定义。
短还是长时段，1830年，回归家庭，革命打开的机会被重新关闭；内战前，1820-1840年禁酒、废奴社团兴起，妇女形成了公民意识。这样看，仍然是更积极的。
2007年出版，在美国很多期刊有高度评价，当时1980年科尔伯和诺顿的书仍是经典，辉格主义叙事。Zagari提出曾有回潮，曾经被关闭过。在女性政治活动参与中有意义。
蔡萌：各方面核心内容，在其他领域都被写过。妇女史的开拓前景。
雷柏云：跨大西洋史视角、社会史（少数族裔婚姻）。
政治史的意义。
李老师：科尔伯、诺顿集中在革命时期，有一些预言，Zagari提供了反证，在革命开创的女性史研��，开会讨论是否给女性选举权，作为一种权利，Zagari认为有一种断裂，综合叙事的特点。前四章为第五章做铺垫，创建。革命不仅有进步，也有反冲。
研究视角有自己的考虑，不是单纯的妇女史，把政治史、社会史、性别史结合在一起。超脱了妇女史，不仅单纯的妇女政治参与，要揭露美国革命另一半人在民主的参与提供了视角，反衬Sean Wilenz。政治参与的复杂性。
方法论，三种政治的界定，早期政治、女性经历，把概念作为方法，用概念作为方法。考虑当时人的政治概念，1820-1830年的退出政治，是当时人所 理解的政治，生理不适合，不是civil society、公众活动，概念上不矛盾。总体上不是backlash，社会参与程度在扩大。
写作非常清晰，一目了然。
空间代表制（Public Space），思想史传统贯彻。公共意见、舆论气候。
意识形态取向比较温和，不是激愤的女性主义者，比较中立。历史学家处理材料冷静、细致，优秀史家。
存在问题：研究妇女的经历，材料少，有局限，过度诠释，小说文本，小说人物对话作为核心证据，而非旁证，说服力不够。第一幅画，黑人女性在地上看科技，解释为美国革命给女性和黑人都带来了改变，本身自由女神无性别，是希腊罗马传统，而非女性，更多是说黑人。与性别无关，特别是与革命时期的性别观念无关。
写文章首先要写清楚，清晰准确、有分寸感表达出来。先想清楚，写出来，表达出来。思考、语言、表达：清楚、准确、分寸感。
November 19, 2021
Central intervention of the book is great: white women were extremely involved in the political environment of the post-Revolutionary era. Women were even voting in NJ until 1807 (definitely white women and possibly Black women, though it's hard to recover all of the names on the ballot rolls). The trajectory towards the 19th amendment was not looking so bleak, then, until a wave of conservative backlash in the 1820s. So this book is a worthy addition to the long list of scholars demonstrating the way that the 1820s and 1830s were marked by conservative backlash. Sylvia Frey, Betty Wood, Catherine Brekus, Albert Raboteau, and Charles Irons all demonstrate that such was the case in evangelicalism, in a variety of ways. Add to that Native American expulsion ("Indian Removal") policies and you get a pretty scary picture. Also historiographically, Ed Morgan's influence is all over this, especially in the central concern for the contradictions inherent in American freedom.
Despite that insight, the book is marred by extremely repetitive prose, even word for word duplications at the start and end of chapters of lines that appear in the introduction. And Zagarri's optimism occasionally veers into ideological territory (namely a triumphalist view of the way the Revolution opened up discourses of equality and individual rights...). So this book is worth reading, but isn't a home run.
Despite that insight, the book is marred by extremely repetitive prose, even word for word duplications at the start and end of chapters of lines that appear in the introduction. And Zagarri's optimism occasionally veers into ideological territory (namely a triumphalist view of the way the Revolution opened up discourses of equality and individual rights...). So this book is worth reading, but isn't a home run.
December 7, 2022
After hearing Joanne Freeman mention this book repeatedly on "History Matters (and so does coffee)," I finally decided to read it, and I'm glad I did. Zagarri charts the rise and fall of the moment of revolutionary fervor that briefly raised the possibility (and actuality, in the case of New Jersey) for female (and free black) suffrage. Not only was there briefly a moment when female suffrage was a real possibility, but women also were able to participate in politics because it was informal and frequently took place in the street with demonstrations and protests. With the rise of more formalized systems that focused on voting as the main form of political participation and ideological arguments that women should only participate in politics as "republican mothers" who instilled virtues in their sons, women lost political power.
Despite the very academic tone and style, it's still an enjoyable pleasure read. Zagarri provides all the necessary context for those of us who aren’t American history specialists to follow the points she's making. However, it is extremely repetitive--it's definitely a book that you can "gut" and still follow the entirety of the argument.
Despite the very academic tone and style, it's still an enjoyable pleasure read. Zagarri provides all the necessary context for those of us who aren’t American history specialists to follow the points she's making. However, it is extremely repetitive--it's definitely a book that you can "gut" and still follow the entirety of the argument.
December 1, 2025
Had a lot of promise, but ultimately fell short. The book felt repetitive, with much of the content rehashing the same points over and over. In fact, it felt like you could grasp the entire point of the book just from the introduction alone. While the topic is undoubtedly interesting, the execution left a lot to be desired, making it a bit of a slog to get through. This could’ve just been a journal article…
August 28, 2021
An interesting argument that Revolution opened space for women politically (voting in NJ, informally elsewhere) but that rise of DemRep and universal male suffrage in the Jacksonian period spurred a backlash and made women's participation less acceptable.
December 7, 2018
Also read this for my American history term paper. Great read! Even though I don't typically read non fiction very informational and smooth.
March 3, 2024
super repetitive, could have been an article, just read the introduction if you are interested
December 10, 2024
Read for a class in graduate school. Interesting on women in the EAR and their participation and influence on politics.
August 28, 2025
raise good politicians and then youre basically a politician yourself!...yeah right
February 26, 2011
This beautifully researched book vividly portrays the 1770s to 1790s as a time when some of the American Revolution's radical potential was realized for women. Along with (or even before) the "republican mother," there was a brief place for the "female politician," the logical outcome of all that talk about equality and liberty. The rise of separate spheres, Zagarri argues, was part of a backlash against women in public -- not the threat or fear of women entering politics, but their real presence in Revolutionary politics.
The early Republic was sorely understudied by women's historians until recently, and there's no consensus yet among different scholars about the era. REVOLUTIONARY BACKLASH is an important, influential book in that fascinating field. Zagarri's keen insights has made me think in new ways about the trajectory of women's rights and women's history.
The early Republic was sorely understudied by women's historians until recently, and there's no consensus yet among different scholars about the era. REVOLUTIONARY BACKLASH is an important, influential book in that fascinating field. Zagarri's keen insights has made me think in new ways about the trajectory of women's rights and women's history.
January 21, 2015
This was a really interesting in-depth study of women's role in American politics in the Early Republic. One would expect women to have very little role in government in the very beginning with their rights and access to the political system gradually evolving over time, but this is not the case at all. If you have ever struggled with blending the ideals of equality as expressed in the Declaration of Independence versus the reality of women's exclusion and disenfranchisement, this book paints a clearer picture of how that reality came to be.
April 5, 2016
Am I going to reference Zagarri all the time when talking about American women in the 18th and 19th centuries? You bet. I love the way she writes and her argument, if not perfect, is extraordinarily compelling. I loved this book.
September 4, 2009
I'm reviewing this on H-Women. Feel free to check it out in the next couple of months.
August 12, 2011
I agree with the argument in theory, but I think this book goes too far. Democracy for whites was not given at the expense of women and if anything it opened later opportunities.
March 26, 2021
Required reading for a graduate seminary, Historians debate the American Revolution
Read
September 13, 2018Love!
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews