Founding-era historian Gordon Wood identifies some important sources of the Founders’ genius.
When it comes to the American founding, I’m team Gordon Wood. Wood, the preeminent authority on Founding-era America, is justly famous for many things. Perhaps best known of these is his book The Radicalism of the American Revolution. His thesis is right there in the title and also elaborated in the work itself: “The Revolution did not just eliminate monarchy and create republics; it actually reconstituted what Americans meant by public or state power and brought about an entirely new kind of popular politics and a new kind of democratic officeholder.”
So, how did they do it? In the Washington Post, Wood has offered an explanation for “the originality and creative genius of this singular generation of political leaders.” In his view, much of the Founders’ greatness derived from the unique circumstances of the land in which they lived, and of their own stations. Though they were conscious of the many differences between America and England, these distinctions “ultimately became important sources of their originality and creativity.”
The lack of a social situation comparable to the English aristocracy was one important factor. They came by virtue of their status to resent the notion of inherited privilege, and to favor merit. Because the Founders were on the whole “men of high ambition yet of relatively modest or unrefined origins, . . . achieved rather than ascribed values” appealed to them. They endeavored to be “natural aristocrats”: “those who measured their status not by birth or family, but by enlightened values and benevolent behavior.”
As proof, Wood offers a notable counterexample: Aaron Burr. Unique among prominent figures in the Founding in his claim to a noble pedigree, Burr felt entitled to greatness. “Because of his distinguished ancestry, Burr took his aristocratic status for granted and felt no need whatsoever to emphasize his virtue.” Unlike his contemporaries, “he always seemed to be promoting his own interests at the expense of the public good.” The actual aristocrat, then, failed the test of natural aristocracy.
Through their noble yet accessible commitments, the Founders not only distinguished themselves from their predecessors and English contemporaries. They also provided a template, whatever its imperfections, that stands out to us today. It is a template of which many — most — modern leaders fall short. We are fortunate, then, that the Founders possessed sufficient virtue to have “accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society.”