<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The Framers: Neither Anarchists nor Statists
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: The Framers: Neither Anarchists nor Statists
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent and Pioneering Study
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent and Pioneering Study
Review: 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.
<< 1 >>
| 
