Gordon Woodard: The American Revolution

A revolution is a time of change, specifically in the American Revolution a time when the American Colonies overthrew the British Government becoming their own nation. Revolution a complete turn derives from the word revolve. Things usually revolve so that they can be aligned again and balanced. The colonies revolved so that they could completely change from the British control, wanting to create their own government independent of the British. The American Revolution, to some historians “wasn’t really revolutionary” including the need for a nationality and freedom for all. For other historians there is a distinct moment when the refusal to abide to the British turns into a revolution. Either way, all historians can agree that there were

Woodard makes it clear at the beginning of chapter 10 that the American revolution, in his opinion, was not an actual revolution, lacking the necessary strive for unity, equality and freedom. Cokie Roberts and Nick Sacco both contradicting what Woodard claims. Sacco refers to Gordon Wood, another historian who shares his view that the conservative proposition that Woodard theorizes is false, and both state that in actuality one of the American Revolution goals was that America is centered around freedom, which “most likely played some sort of role in the creation of a Bill of Rights”. Roberts throughout her entire recap gives examples of the colonist standing in unity, fighting for the justice and freedom, and striving for equality. She even states a specific moment, during the Boston Massacre that the “revolution was conceived”. Roberts also differs from the other historians by giving an account in the perspective of the lower and middle class women of the British American Colonies. This gives the reader a completely different context, Woodard and Sacco promoting men since they are the only ones able to participate in the government constitution and decision making. This makes the reader lean more in favor of the Patriots, Roberts highlighting scenes on how women “ fear rape” from the British soldiers or how

In Sacco’s Is the Bill of Rights Reflective of Netherland Culture, he comments on how Woodard got the date for the Constitutional Convention wrong and in actuality “took place in 1787 rather than 1789. If Woodard’s work is looked at closely, he remarks on how New York finally accepted the new constitution “on July 26, 1788” therefore contributing to the creation of a new nation by 1789. Furthermore Woodard has a trust worthy citation while Sacco has no reference for where his dates came from. Sacco eventually gets his information right later on in the same article when he cites Yale declaring that “New York finally ratified the United States Constitution on July 26, 1788”. Another problem with Sacco’s work is in his article, Was the American Revolution a Conservative or Radical Movement, where he states that Woodard never cited or referenced Gordon Wood, while in reality Woodard did. While the quote might not have been from the same book by Wood, for the eleventh citation for chapter 11, Woodard gives credit to “Zubly quoted in Gordon S. Wood[‘s] The Creation of the American Republic.” All of these problems with Sacco’s resources shows that Woodard is a more reliable source, also being a published book instead of Sacco’s blog posts. This does not mean that Woodard is not biased and writing slightly