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. ( )

This guy is so up Washington's *** that you could dig up his body and find Wood's initials carved on his wooden teeth. ( )

Interesting. ( )

Gordon S. Wood begins Revolutionary Characters by stating in the preface regarding the founders of America that "No other nation honors its past historical characters, especially characters who existed two centuries ago, in quite the manner we Americans do. We want to know what Thomas Jefferson would think of affirmative action, or George Washington of the invasion of Iraq (p. 3)."

With that, he then discusses throughout this book why that is, and touches on how Americans' views have evolved or changed over time about our founders -- which includes Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Hamilton. Each chapter in this book tends to focus on one man.

Without intending to prove his point to today's readers -- this was published in 2004 -- he states on page 123:

"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."

Ironic, yes? Hamilton is much more considered a hero nowadays, thanks to Hamilton: The Musical . So, with this Wood is right, in that how we view history changes over time.

This book is also an excellent refresher on some events and promient people of the era. I would like to seek out more of Gordon S. Wood's works.

My only complaint is that Revolutionary Characters is male-centric, even though there are other books out there that focus on women's history from the same era. Come to think of it, I don't know of any that mixes the two gender perspectives together -- if there are, perhaps they are encyclopedic in format or focuses on say, both John and Abigail Adams. ( )

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. ( )

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. ( )

This is the second Gordon S. Wood book on the Revolution I've tried to read. And while I got about 60% of the way through this one, I just didn't care to finish. I read for pleasure and his writing style is way too academic for my tastes. I've read MANY books on the late 18th century regarding our founding and am very passionate about it. But I'm more interested in reading ABOUT history than getting analysis from an historian to the degree that Wood offers. ( )

Going in, I didn't know what to expect from this book, except that it was authored by Gordon S. Wood, who I vaguely perceived as some sort of respectable historian of the early republic. I have a typical American education and enjoy history and listened to McCullough's John Adams and have seen my share of documentaries, but this was a lot of new material for me. And Wood wasn't even trying to be exhaustive, but just to depict the political character of several early prominent personalities from the American revolution. How did they establish their legacy? How did they shape American political traditions in their own images? How did they differ sharply? How does historical tradition remember them, and how should it remember them? How are they co-opted anachronistically by modern political movements? This isn't their life stories, it's how they made American political identity.

At first, Wood sets the stage with the rise of revisionist historians (often in the early 20th century) eager to inappropriately bash the founders as corrupt or overestimated. I was worried that Wood was preparing to refute such critics by heaping praise on the founders as paragons of virtue and intellect. But his tone turned out nicely balanced. They were great men in their times; after all, there are reasons they are remembered. But they were products of their times, steeped in class culture and monarchical systems and keenly aware that they were launching a wild experiment in government, fraught with risk and without clear consensus. They were complex and contradictory, and seem to have left a country equally complex and contradictory (though perhaps the stronger for it). Despite their personal flaws, infighting, and cultural limitations, they worked to be servants in the cause of progress. They were bold and inventive, and the book concludes how their generation out of the enlightenment was unusually prolific, published heavily, thought deeply, and ultimately set the stage for a new culture that elevated the common man, making this kind of elite nobleman unlikely to ever reappear. ( )

Good book for history buffs. Great narrator (audiobook). Basically the book is a (very long) chapter on each "character" that the author considers integral part of the revolution, and it describes how both the general public and the "intellectuals" viewed these characters in revolutionary times.

The best part of this book IMO was learning word definitions used in the 1700s vs. now: for example, the author explains how "disinterested" nowadays tends to mean "uninterested" but back in revolutionary days someone "disinterested" was thought of as above the common man, that person not beholden to interests and therefore could ponder topics and have sophisticated enlightened opinions on those topics. Kinda funny, I don't think we can use that word in its original meaning today because it's impossible nowadays to be disinterested. ( )

Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different by Gordon Wood is a great history of several of our Founding Fathers. Pulitzer prize winner Wood has compiled a lot of information from essays and other sources over the years and condensed them into neatly packaged chapters on each founder.

I enjoyed the explanation of what it meant to be a "gentleman" in the 1700s, and how public service was something seen as a voluntary burden to bear on behalf of the people (ie: the foresaking of private wealth for an impoverished life as a public servant).

The most intriguing biographies for me were those of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Madison was once a proponent of a strong federal government until he saw what that was meaning in the new U.S. and later became a staunch advocate of states' rights.

Alexander Hamilton envisioned an America with a larger land mass, large government with large debts, large military force, and a modern economy with a prominent central bank. Hamilton is likely the only Founder who would be at home in America today.

This book would have been perfect without the Epilogue. I find introductions and epilogues to be ways that authors slide their own personal sermons in.

4.5 stars 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. ( )

4969. Revolutionary Characters What Made the Founders Different, by Gordon S. Wood (read 20 Oct 2012) This book studies, in turn, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Paine, and Burr, and mostly says good insightful things about them, though the treatment of Jefferson is more unfavorable than one usually expects--and of course little good can be said of Burr. Wood has a sure but not exciting touch as he discusses these famed figures and as was true of other books by Wood I have read (The Radicalism of the American Revolution (read 25 Dec 1994) and Empire of Liberty (read 6 Dec 2009)), I cannot say his careful exposition, which seems to go on and on, makes for riveting reading. But he says lots of perceptive things and one does not regret reading what he has to say. ( )

Gordon S. Wood. Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different? New York: The Penguin Press. 2006. xi+321 pp.
The Founding Fathers of American government are people who are well known to Americans. There are numerous books, many articles, and several shows and movies that provide Americans with a glimpse into the people who were instrumental in setting up this nation. The plethora of sources available make it easy for one to learn about the Founders. However, that same issue makes it difficult for authors to present new material on the Founders. Gordon S. Wood has written a book about the Founders. This book has achieved that difficult task of delving into an extensively researched subject, and presenting the material in a new way. Wood’s book, Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different?, takes several of the Founders, and explains their greatness.
Wood does not explain the collective greatness of the Founders. He breaks it down individually, showing how each of the men were great. Wood also, avoids the trap of using the myths to argue for their extraordinary accomplishments. It is often claimed that the Founders were better than other people. Washington, it is claimed, almost had no shortcomings. Franklin was the true American, a backwoods gentleman. The other founders have similar myths. In recent times, the trend has been to cast the Founders in an unfavorable light. Many say that the Founders were hypocrites. People wonder how they could have argued for freedom, and yet fail to abolish slavery. Some have claimed that Washington was a great actor, and that everything he did was planned. He was the Great Manipulator. Wood provides a look at the Founders without minimizing their failures, and without over emphasizing their greatness. He has found a way to show the Founders as they were, and to show how they were able to become great. Wood argues that the Founders were truly great, but this might not have been the case somewhere else. “Great as they were, the revolutionary leaders were certainly not demigods or superhuman individuals; they were very much the product of specific circumstances and a specific moment in time” (11). It took great people, placed in a specific place, at a specific time, in order to achieve greatness.
“What made the Founders different?” Wood examines several different Founders in an attempt to answer this question. Wood discusses George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, and Thomas Paine in order to show the greatness of the Founders, and to explain what it was that made them great. Wood also analyzes Aaron Burr. This is done to show the other side of the coin. Not all who were involved in the founding of America were great. Burr “became the great exception that proves the rule …” and “… recounting his deviant experience helps us better understand the character of the founders” (26).
Washington was a man who was somewhat aloof. He did not really open up to people. He was a quiet man, and felt inferior to many men. He never received an advanced formal education. He was not a brilliant man. However, he was a great man. Washington was not a political genius, yet he was able to rule a nation, and was, according to Wood, the greatest president America has had. Washington was not a gifted military strategist, yet he was able to defeat the most powerful military in the world. He was able to do this using a rag-tag group of untrained men. Washington was a pragmatic man. He was able to see what needed to be done, and then do it. He was successful as a planter. He, unlike the more intellectual Jefferson, was able to profit from running his plantation. Washington moral character was one of the things that made him great. He was trusted by people, and was able to live up to that trust. His lack of a desire for power was one evidence of his great moral character.
Franklin was great for an entirely different reason. Franklin is seen as a man that embodies the American essence. He was very wise, his proverbs show this, He was brilliant, look at his work in electricity, and he was a great statesman, his efforts in France cannot be denied. Franklin was an early example of a rags to riches story. But was Franklin really what he is seen to be. “Franklin’s rise was due to [patronage]. … He could never have made it in the way he did… if he had not been helped by men of influence” (75). Franklin is seen as an individual who was not a politician, but was an ordinary American. However, Franklin had more political experience than most of the Founders did at the beginning of the Revolution. He was able to use people’s perceptions to give them what they wanted. The French wanted a backwoods gentleman. Franklin did not disappoint. He wore a fur cap, and played the part. Where Washington was infused with moral character, Franklin was made of more perceptive stuffs. He understood people, and used that understanding.
Jefferson was different from both of these others. Jefferson is the one Founder that everyone claims. Both sides of the political aisle claim that their views are drawn from Jefferson’s own views. His reputation is also tied to the perception of America. Throughout American history, people have praised or condemned Jefferson, and praised or condemned America the same way. As Jefferson goes, so goes America. Where Franklin was perceptive, and able to give people what they wanted, Jefferson has been able to appeal to everyone.
The other Founders were similarly discussed. Alexander Hamilton was able to see what needed to happen in order to make a government that could survive. James Madison was able to maintain his consistency, even when it looked like he was arguing for different sides. John Adams was above question an honest man. He was fiery, and fought for what he thought was right. He alienated some, but nobody questioned his drive or his integrity. Thomas Paine was able to move people with his writings. He inspired Americans to the cause through his pamphlets. Aaron Burr lacked all of these qualities, or at least they were not mainstays of his person.
“What made the Founders different?” The Founders were able to accomplish great things. This was made possible by the make-up of the Founders. Without Washington’s integrity, without his leadership, without his morality, America never would have been born. However, Washington was not alone. In her infancy, America needed Franklin’s skills with people. She needed someone who was able to give people what they wanted, in order to gain what was needed. His global reputation was necessary. Jefferson’s chameleon-like abilities made him essential to the revolution. His ability to provide what was wanted was invaluable. Without Adams, there may have never been a revolution. His firebrand ways were needed to propel the colonists into action. Madison’s consistency and Hamilton’s vision were also needed. All of these men were needed, and all were needed to be willing to sacrifice. They were disinterested, that is, they were willing to sacrifice everything for the cause. Burr was not. Burr was a selfish individual, and as such, he is a glaring contrast to the Founders. Washington sacrificed financially, Franklin sacrificed his family, the others made similar, great sacrifices. “What made the Founders different?” According to Gordon Wood, the Founders were different, were great, because of their selflessness, their character. Herein lies the true greatness of the Founders. ( )

really great, short biographical chapters on several of the key founders of the United States. Really helps in understanding the philosophical underpinnings of the time and the aspirations of these men. ( )

really great, short biographical chapters on several of the key founders of the United States. Really helps in understanding the philosophical underpinnings of the time and the aspirations of these men. ( )

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 WashingtonBen FranklinThomas JeffersonJames Madison Aaron Burr John AdamsAlexander Hamilton Thomas PaineThrough 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. ( )

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, endeavored 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 gentlemanly character. ( )

Gordon Wood offers eight essays, each about a different Founding Father (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Paine and Burr), with the over-arching question, "What made the Founders different?" As many Americans look to the past to the "greatness" of these individuals, many wonder what made them different from the politics of today. One of the main arguments proposed by Wood is indifference: with the exception of Burr, the remaining seven were not politicians by choice or trade but by necessity and duty.

This is an interesting and provocative read, well worthy of recommendation for anyone who enjoys history or politics. The essays are not biographies of the Founders, but arguments about their political importance in history. ( )

A summary on eight of the founding fathers. Not so much a biography as a summary on their worldview and political outlook., and what made them different. By the very nature of what htis is, it calls for the author to interject h is own opinion, although Woods does attempt to back it up with letters and articles. Although I did not agree with all the assesments that the author made (particularly in Adams case) it was still an enjoyable read. But again, if you are looking for a biography of these men, there are better sources. ( )

This is a pretty good book but I did get kind of bored by the end. It is almost like a quick summary of our founding fathers from George Washington to John Adams to Aaron Burr. Each founding father gets his own little chapter which makes it easier to read and understand.

Gordon S. Wood is a great writer and historian, and he did do some great research for this book but I was not as impressed with it. I expected more. ( )

- Book #2 that I have read by Gordon Wood…Wood is outstanding and is moving up to the top of my list of favorite revolutionary war authors
- Profile/short chapter of 8 famous American Founders…Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Paine, and Burr
- Profile/short chapters are not individual biographies, the intent is to understand the Founder’s personality, philosophies and motivations
- My favorite chapter was “Is There a James Madison Problem”…in the 1780’s Madison was in favor of a strong Federal government and active collaborator with Hamilton on the Federalist Papers. However, in the 1790’s Madison turn on Hamilton and began to advocate for limited Federal government powers. Wood states Madison never “flip-flop” on the powers of the federal government. Madison desire was to have the federal government umpire over states ensuring they maintain a republican form of government…not to govern over the states
- Enjoyed the Burr and Paine profile/short chapters. My other revolutionary war era books have not painted the picture of Burr/Paine character and political philosophies like Wood has done in this outstanding book
- The profile/short chapter on Adams was a very scholarly read. Woods points out that Adams was brilliant in his thoughts on government. However, Adams had a huge gap in the role democratic principles would have in support of the three branches of government
- The profile/short chapter on Washington supports why Washington deserves to be mentioned as our greatest President
- Woods points out that none of the Founders ever intended to contribute to democratic form of government, which of course is what eventually occurred ( )

Each chapter tells about a different founding father. Not worth reading, in my opinion. Wood doesn't always tell the entire story, and then imposes his interpretation on partial information. Having read a lot of other material on this period, I found myself disagreeing with his analyses and irritated at his omissions. (JAF)

I decided that the Fourth was an appropriate day for a review of Gordon Wood's new book Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different. It provides an excellent counterpoint to the other work on the framers I reviewed recently, the misguided What Would the Founders Do? by Rick Brookhiser (the two were in fact jointly reviewed by Jon Meacham recently).

Wood's book is a much more serious examination of the founding personalities than Brookhiser's, and for that reason alone is infinitely more important. Drawn mostly from previously published materials that are revised and expanded here, Wood offers short character sketches of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Paine and Burr, as well as quite useful introductory and concluding chapters. He makes the important point that most of these men saw the world very differently than we do, and pictured their role in that world rather differently as well.

The general conclusion that Wood has reached after examining the lives of the founders is that their achievements can never again be duplicated because of the groundwork for egalitarian democracy which they laid in framing the government. "One of the prices we had to pay for democracy," he writes, "was a decline in the intellectual quality of American political life and an eventual separation between ideas and power."

I enjoyed each of Wood's chapters. Washington he describes as "the only truly classical hero we have ever had," explaining the first president's fixation on how others would perceive his actions in terms of the worldviews of the time and the concepts of "honor" that held sway. Wood describes Washington's decision to resign his commission at the end of the Revolution as "the greatest act of his life," a conclusion which is difficult to argue with.

The section on Franklin is adapted from Wood's The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin, where the point is made (and well) that Franklin's participation in the Revolutionary movement should hardly be taken for granted given his strong ties with Britain and commitment to the empire. Wood also discusses the important "creation" of the Franklinian image, which he argues was largely a creation of the nineteenth century.

Wood addresses the question of the "James Madison" problem head on in this book - that is, how do we reconcile the Convention nationalist Madison of 1787-88 with the states' rights Madison of the 1790s? His important contribution is the understanding that while Madison was indeed a nationalist, his vision was quite different from that blueprint which ended up emerging at Philadelphia; Madison saw the federal government as a "dispassionate umpire", hoping that it would not become simply a copy of the fiscal-military states then emerging in Europe. If we understand Madison in this way, Wood argues, the "problem" ceases to emerge.

Aaron Burr is best understood in terms of his contrasts to the other founders, Wood argues - this was a man not concerned with the views of posterity, violating every tenet of his generation's conception of leadership as disinterestered, unambitious and principled. John Adams told the truths that Americans didn't want to hear about themselves, then or now, and Tom Paine "still does not quite fit in" even though his contributions to the American cause were vital.

It was the changes in American political and intellectual society in the early nineteenth century that came to overthrow the old order of the founders, and has made them more difficult for us to understand and impossible to replicate in our time. Wood concludes "nothing illustrates better the transforming power of the American Revolution than the way its intellectual and political leaders, that extraordinary group of men, contributed to their own demise."

In his review, Meacham writes "it would be too hasty to rule out the possibility America may once again produce new generations of similarly transformative leaders." I think in theory that's right, but agree with Wood that the founders must stand alone - we'll never have another bunch like them, which is all the more reason to understand their lives and characters on their own terms. Revolutionary Characters is an excellent contribution to that scholarship. ( )