by Pauline Maier
|
| List Price: | $16.95 |
| Amazon Price: | $11.53 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. |
| You Save: | $5.42 (32%) |
| Average Rating: |  |
| Lowest New Price: | $10.04 |
| Availablitiy: | Usually ships in 24 hours |
|
 |
|
No Editorial Reviews yet
Customers who bought this item also bought
Average Customer Review:
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:
Dual Power in the American Revolution, 2008-06-04
In my youth I was greatly enamored of Crane Brinton's classic sociological study of the stages of revolution, Anatomy of a Revolution. In that work Brinton put forth a number of propositions that he believed were common to the English revolution of the 17th century, the American and French revolutions of the 18th century and the Russian of the 20th century as he tried to draw some conclusions about the similarities of great modern revolutions up to his time. Although his work has been superseded, in part, by advances in scholarship over the past half century or so every thoughtful observer of revolutions can still benefit by a reading of his work.
A central theme of that work was that in the pre-revolutionary period a fair slice of society (generally a literate, activist segment) shifted its allegiance, in self-defense, away from the established order and either adhered to new parallel political organizations or remained neutral toward the possibilities of an impeding uprising. Professor Maier has taken that proposition, although she seemingly has made no formal recognition of her debt to Brinton, and applied it to a study of the American Revolution and has made a very nice case for Professor Brinton's proposition. Using his schema has just strenghtened her argument.
Leon Trotsky in his seminal three-volume work The History of the Russian Revolution has a chapter in Volume Two headed Dual Power. The gist of the argument that Trotsky presents there is that in revolutionary periods the organized structures of the old regime are confronted with parallel structures organized by the revolutionary forces. In the case of the Russian revolution that, once the question of the monarchy was out of the way- a question basically settled by the February Revolution, shaped up to be a battle between the forces around Kerensky's bourgeois Provisional government and the revolutionary forces around the Workers, Soldiers and Peasants Soviets. In the long haul one of those two forces had to prevail and in the Russian case it was the Soviets.
Trotsky, here was, of course, discussing the question of the direct struggle for state power but I would argue that that same notion can be used for the pre-revolutionary period, at least for the American Revolution. Professor Maier's work bears out that contention. Certainly the way that she structures her time frames captures the various turns in the political struggle toward revolution fairly accurately (peaceful petition and non-cooperation, spirited public demonstrations, boycotts, acts of violence against British property and creation of an organ of self-government). In that ten year period from 1765, the period of the agitation centered on the activities of the Sons of Liberty against Stamp Act, through the various other oppositional movements to unjust parliamentary actions through the key establishment of a Continental Congress (the American equivalent of the National Assembly in the French and Soviets in the Russian experiences) culminating in a declaration of independence there is a sea change in the shift of the political allegiance by the bulk of American colonists toward England and the monarchy.
The radicals in America, like John and Samuel Adams (cousins), Joseph Warren, James Otis and John Hancock, started out assuming that the English monarchy, its governmental ministries and an elected Parliament were rational organizations. And they were for the English if not for the unrepresented colonialists. Thus each act, like the Stamp Act, Townsend Acts, etc. contrary to the interests of the colonialists met with an organized opposition. However, this opposition started out with the colonialists acting merely as aggrieved by an uninformed, or in the worst case manipulated, sovereign as time and the number of egregious incidents goes on the radicals move further left, pick up other layers of society and begin to see that self interest required independence. Along the way some elements react against the leftward movement and either goes to the sidelines of the political struggle or adhere to the monarchy. Valuable political lessons were accumulated along the way.
Are there any lessons to be drawn today from those struggles of our forebears, though? In short, are we in that ten-year period prior to a revolutionary turn? Certainly the objective situation in the economy, the world political situation and the crush of social institutions are not qualitatively different from 1765. But no, I see no parallels today of people creating alternate institutions to take on the government, although they should. Nevertheless scholars, history buffs, radicals and revolutionaries should read this book.
14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
Compelling Thesis With Some Minor Flaws, 2005-08-01
As the subtitle states, Pauline Maier follows the evolutionary process of the American resistance movement against Britain in the Colonies from 1765 to 1776. Maier traces the ideology of resistance back across the Atlantic to a radical faction of the Whig Party in Britain known as "Real Whigs." The Real Whigs believed that since the Glorious Revolution citizens have a right and a responsibility to speak out against the abuses of power and corruption within the government. Their aim, however, was not anarchy but rather to seek redress and reform through legal means. Maier argues this Real Whig ideology was transplanted to the American colonies through various forms of Whig literatures, particularly pamphlets by such political philosophers as John Locke and John Milton. In addition, Maier points out a further source of influence were the essays published by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon as "Cato's Letters," a primary source the author draws from extensively. The Real Whig philosophy was thus exposed at various town meetings throughout the colonies, particularly those in New England. Maier shows how assorted forms of "popular uprisings" to the Crown had existed at regional levels during the first decades of the eighteenth century. It was not until the 1760s, however, that a series of taxes levied by Britain on a variety of imported goods resulted in an increase of acts of protest and violence by the colonial radicals. Maier emphasizes how these early grievances were expressed though moderately peaceful means. The common practice of tarring and feathering of tax collectors, and later Stamp men was first initiated during this early period and for the most part became the extent of the personal violence practiced by the radicals. According to Maier, the Stamp Act of 1765 proved a watershed event for the resistance movement. Two bloody riots in Boston in August of that year bordered on chaos, but offered valuable lessons for the resistance leaders. From this point on, argues Maier, resistance against Britain became an organized movement whose centralized tactics spread throughout the colonies. The epicenter of the resistance movement was the organization dubbed the Sons of Liberty; first established in New York, with chapters soon rising up in other cities and towns throughout the colonies. Maier emphasizes that initially the colonists wanted to remain loyal to Great Britain. Reforms of oppressive governmental policies set forth against the colonials were their ultimate goal. The Sons of Liberty devised a strategy of systematic resistance through "extra-legal" not "illegal" means. If violence became necessary, destruction against official property, was preferred over harm to individuals. Maier illustrates the dismantling of tax offices and the Boston Tea Party, as examples of the former, while pointing out that rarely were official's homes destroyed. Moreover, effigies became the focus of frustration, not the officials themselves. When the Stamp Act was repealed, the resisters felt they had achieved a great victory and were content to return to life as usual under the mother country. It was only after Britain's escalation of "Intolerable Acts, however, that the resisters peaceful means proved inadequate. Maier concludes that revolution was the last resort for the colonial radicals and initiated only after all peaceful means were exhausted. Maier has written an intellectual history integrating a cause and effect methodology centering on a small group of radical resistors. The early publication date (1972) suggests the eclectic methodologies borrowed from the social sciences were not as prevalent in early American historiography as would be the case in the closing decade of the twentieth century. The author attempts to broaden her study to include the mid-Atlantic and southern colonies, however, a heavy emphasis on New England, particularly Boston, seems unavoidable. Maier prefers to consult mostly primary sources and utilizes the work of contemporary scholars sparingly. Wherever possible, period secondary sources, such as William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1771) are checked. The author cites various period correspondence, pamphlets, and a plethora of town Gazettes detailed in copious notes. Some criticisms. First, Maier fails in her efforts to effectively include all the colonies in her study. A comparative regional study far beyond the reaches of Maier's work would be needed to do justice to the complexity of the inter-colonial resistance movement. In addition, throughout the work the author assumes a considerable amount of knowledge from her readers. This approach is particularly evident with her treatment, or lack thereof, of the core of colonial radicals. For example, in the introduction, Maier explains how "A significant group of men . . . emerged as strong American partisans during the Stamp Act crisis and remained in the forefront of opposition to Britain on into the war." She goes on to list these prominent participants: "Christopher Gadsden in Charleston; Cornelius Harnett in North Carolina; Richard Henry Lee in Virginia; John Lamb and Isaac Sears in New York; Samuel Adams in Boston; . . . [and] Thomas Young . . . in Albany." Other than mere mention, Maier does not go into much detail about the lives or backgrounds of these men. More focus on this core group would have added a human dimension to her intellectual study. The fact that these men cover a wide geographical base reinforces the notion that Maier could have delved deeper into the inter-colonial aspect of the resistance movement. Aside from these nit-picks, Maier supports her thesis well throughout the book. Maier's argument centers on the premise that organized resistance as opposed to mob violence was the preferred method of expressing grievances, with revolution becoming a consideration only as a last resort. The author adequately demonstrates the resistance movement had historical precedence by tracing its origins back to the Real Whig faction in Britain. Maier's work is significant in that she shows that the colonial "radicals" were more about the Boston Tea Party and less about the more violent Boston Massacre and Lexington-Concord scenarios so prominently expressed in colonial historical literature.
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
From loyal opposition to American revolutionaries, 2005-02-23
Pauline Maier, currently the Willian R. Kenan Jr. Professor of American History at MIT, received her Ph.D from Harvard in 1968, one year after the publication of The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, written by her advisor and mentor Bernard Bailyn. In "From Resistance to Revolution," Maier builds upon the framework constructed by Bailyn to articulate her own answer to the Progressive and New Left interpretations of the Revolution. Maier is not so concerned about the sources of revolutionary thought as she is with tracking the development of the colonists' perception of themselves, their government and the British people. Maier, like her mentor, is convinced that "Real Whig" philosophy played a crucial role in the Revolution, yet she acknowledges that not every colonist "spent his evenings reading Francis Hutcheson's System of Moral Philosophy." Furthermore, in her words, "To acknowledge the importance of ideology in the evolution of the American revolutionary movement is not, however, to claim that ideology explains why men became revolutionaries" (xiv).
It is apparent that Maier was taught well by Bernard Bailyn. She has a captivating writing style that weaves her research throughout a well-crafted prose. Maier deserves special praise for tying events across the Atlantic-and even the Mediterranean-with the American resistance, and later revolutionary, movements. The most serious shortcoming of this book is its focus on New England, very little attention is given to events in the Middle Colonies and the South. Yet despite whatever shortcomings this book may have it is a valuable contribution to understanding the development of the American revolutionary effort.
19 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
Excellent and Pioneering Study, 2000-07-07
In this very well written book, Professor Maier describes the evolution of colonial thought and political action from protest within an accepted formula of dissent to revolution. She shows how colonial actions were based upon a perceived constitutional pattern articulated by British dissident Whig intellectuals and political publicists. From the end of the Seven Years War to the outbreak of the revolution, she shows the leaders of colonial protest working step by step to maintain what they perceived as the proper relationship between rulers and governed. Their actions greeted usually with incomprehension by British officials and politicians. Eventually, the colonials concluded that revolution was the only remaining option. Maier is particularly interested in the violent and coercive acts of the pre-revolutionary period. She shows nicely that this kind of activity (eg, the Boston Tea Party and similar events) took place within an established tradition of public violence that was usually constrained and sanctioned by community leaders and reflected a public consensus. These type of actions were 'extra-legal' as opposed to 'illegal', and were driven by the sense that the British government had violated a social contract between rulers and governed, thus legitimizing extra-legal action. Maier shows also the irrational elements of the colonial cause. For example, many believed that British actions were part of a conspiracy that included French bribery to obtain a suitable settlement at the end of the Seven Years War. There was also considerable fear of the imposition of Anglican and even Roman Catholic religion. The Quebec Act, granting religous freedom to the francophone inhabitants of Quebec, was regarded perhaps the most threatening of the so-called Intolerable Acts. Readers who have picked up recent surveys of the Revolutionary period such as Middlekauf's The Glorious Cause or Bobrick's recent book will find Maier's arguments familiar. This is because Maier's work is now fundamental to understanding the American Revolution.
35 of 39 people found the following review helpful:
 The Framers: Neither Anarchists nor Statists, 1999-11-22
As Gordon Wood pointed out in the New York Times, this is a terrific piece of work. It's also an underappreciated piece of work in today's debate over the scope of government. On the one hand we have people like Garry Wills arguing that, since the Framers weren't anarchists, the Constitution supports modern-day Big Government. On the other, we have equally-wacky people on the right arguing that, since the Framers were revolutionaries, Timothy McVeigh is some sort of hero.In fact, both are equally wrong. As Maier's book points out, the colonial era was not one in which people accepted the 20th Century Weberian notion of the state as holding a monopoly on legitimate violence. Many sorts of "insurrectionary" violence -- of the sort that Gordon Wood calls "out of doors" political action -- were implicitly, and explicitly, recognized as legitimate. But that's not the same as saying that all violence was okay. In fact, as Maier points out again and again, colonists recognized fundamental limits on the scope, degree, and targets of popular resistance. Violence might be okay, but mostly against property -- and when against individuals, only nonlethal violence in most situations. Maier's book shows a far more sophisticated theory than appears in today's left- and right-wing caricatures of the Framers. It's also wonderfully readable and copiously documented. It should get more attention -- and with luck it will.
Price is accurate as of the date/time indicated. Prices and product availability are subject to change. Any price displayed on the Amazon website at the time of purchase will govern the sale of this product.
|
Store Categories
|