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. ( )