"These are the times that try men's souls." -
Thomas Paine, The American Crisis (1776)
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all
hang separately." - Attributed to Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the
Declaration of Independence (1776)
"Join, or Die" - A famous political cartoon and
slogan created by Benjamin Franklin to promote colonial unity against the
French and their Native American allies, which later became a symbol of unity
against British rule.
Introduction: Propaganda, Class, and the American
Revolution
George Goodwin’s Propaganda Wars of the American Revolution
comes at a time of deep crisis in American and global capitalism. As the 1776 semi-quincentennial
approaches, it coincides with widespread social inequality, imperialist
conflicts, and a rapid decline of democratic institutions in the US. It’s no
surprise that debates over the meaning of the American Revolution—its origins,
class implications, and legacy—have become central in current political
discussions. Published by Yale University Press, Goodwin’s book aims to
contribute to this debate by exploring how the Patriot movement used pamphlets,
sermons, newspapers, broadsides, and political theatre to shape public opinion.
Goodwin is a talented historian and lucid writer. His book
makes a significant contribution to a field traditionally dominated by Bernard
Bailyn and Gordon S. Wood's "ideological school." However, Propaganda
Wars also reveals a main weakness of that perspective by isolating ideas from
the material class interests that influence them. Consequently, it presents a
polished but somewhat idealist view of the Revolution—focusing on persuasion
techniques while underplaying the social forces that made those techniques successful.
The Ideological School and Its Strengths
Goodwin’s intellectual legacy is clearly visible. His
emphasis on propaganda as a key element places him mainly in the ‘ideological’
school of Revolutionary historiography, established by Bernard Bailyn. This
approach, starting with Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American
Revolution (1967), argues that the colonists were driven by a unified worldview
rooted in radical Whig ideas. Bailyn and Wood carefully analysed pamphlets,
sermons, and political debates from that period, opposing the dismissive view
that all declarations of principle are driven solely by self-interest.
From a Marxist perspective, this emphasis on ideas is a
notable strength. “It was a school that approached the record of human thought
with great seriousness.” This is a welcome corrective to the postmodernist
trivialisation of intellectual history and to the racialist distortions of the
1619 Project. Goodwin’s book continues this tradition by showing how the
Patriot cause deliberately shaped public opinion—how Thomas Paine energised the
colonies, how the Boston Tea Party was used as political theatre, and how
Washington actively promoted the image of republican virtue.
Goodwin rightly emphasises that propaganda played a crucial
role. Revolutions depend not just on economic factors but also on mobilising
large groups, expressing grievances, and envisioning a new political future.
The real question is: which forces were being mobilised, and for what purpose?
The Ideological School and Its Afterlives: Bailyn, Wood,
and Goodwin in Comparative Perspective
Any Marxist critique of George Goodwin’s Propaganda Wars of
the American Revolution must place the work within the wider historiographical
context from which it originates. Goodwin is part of a broader intellectual
tradition. His book represents the latest version of the “ideological school,”
originally established by Bernard Bailyn and further expanded with sharper
analysis by Gordon S. Wood. The advantages and drawbacks of Goodwin’s research
are linked to those of this entire tradition.
The ideological school has significantly influenced modern
interpretations of the American Revolution. It has also been the main opposition
to postmodernist and racial-essentialist critiques, which culminated in the New
York Times’ 1619 Project. The International Committee of the Fourth
International, through its collaboration with Wood and its support for
Enlightenment universalism, has actively engaged in this historiographical
debate. As such, a clear, materialist evaluation of the ideological school is
essential.
Bernard Bailyn: Ideology as Prime Mover
Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American
Revolution (1967) marked a major turning point in the study of Revolutionary
history. Moving away from the Progressive focus on economic grievances and
class struggles, Bailyn proposed that the colonists' motivations were rooted in
a consistent worldview inspired by radical Whig ideas. According to this view,
the Revolution was primarily an ideological uprising—a fight to defend liberty
against a perceived British plot to wield arbitrary authority.
Bailyn’s contribution was significant. He brought rigour
back to the analysis of ideas, elevating Revolutionary pamphlets from scholars’
dismissive view of them as simple rationalisations of self-interest. “It was a
school that approached the record of human thought with great seriousness.”
Bailyn’s framework was highly idealistic, portraying ideas
as independent forces separate from the material conditions and class dynamics
that generate them. The Revolution is depicted as a conflict of political ideas
rather than a fight shaped by the contradictions within colonial society. Class
conflict is scarcely mentioned; slavery is seen as a minor issue; and the
economic and social changes following the Revolution are viewed as minor
outcomes rather than fundamental causes. Consequently, Bailyn’s approach is
both a significant advance and a limitation—it expanded the scope of
intellectual history but also restricted understanding to a non-materialist
perspective.
Gordon S. Wood: Ideology as Social Transformation
Gordon S. Wood, Bailyn’s top student, maintained the
ideological school’s focus on ideas while expanding its view to include a more
vibrant and comprehensive understanding of social change. In his works, The
Creation of the American Republic (1969) and The Radicalism of the American
Revolution (1992), Wood showed that republican ideology was more than just
abstract principles; it was a powerful force that transformed political
culture, social structures, and daily life.
Wood’s work represents the most materialist analysis within
the ideological school. He demonstrates that the Revolution dismantled
monarchical and hierarchical social relationships, empowered the “middling
sort,’ and unleashed democratic forces that even the Founders could not fully
control. Additionally, he addressed the Revolution’s core contradiction with
remarkable clarity: the coexistence of liberty and slavery. Wood argued that
the Civil War was an inevitable culmination of a tragedy that originated in the
Revolution itself.
Wood’s accomplishment lies in recognising that ideas are
rooted in society rather than existing in isolation. However, he avoids
adopting a Marxist perspective. He does not view the Revolution as a
bourgeois-democratic event, nor does he see slavery as a fundamental aspect of
capitalist growth. His approach stays within the ideological tradition, despite
pushing against its boundaries.
George Goodwin: Ideology Reduced to Technique
George Goodwin’s Propaganda Wars adopts the strengths of the
ideological school but lacks its deeper analytical depth. While Bailyn explored
the origins of ideology and Wood examined societal transformations, Goodwin
focuses on the mechanics of persuasion. His emphasis is not on the internal
logic of Revolutionary ideas but on how they circulated, were performed, and
emotionally resonated.
The book thoroughly explores printers, pamphleteers,
preachers, and political leaders, illustrating how the Patriot movement
intentionally influenced public opinion. It shows how Paine’s writings inspired
the colonies, how the destruction of the tea served as a political spectacle,
and how Washington fostered an image of republican virtue. However, Goodwin’s
approach is more limited than that of earlier scholars. It's important to
remember that propaganda is grounded in tangible social forces, not just ideas—it
is the ideological expression of actual social dynamics.
Goodwin views propaganda primarily as a technological feat
rather than a reflection of class-based ideology. He describes how the Patriots
succeeded in convincing the public, but does not explore why their messages
connected with various social groups. Consequently, the Revolution is seen more
as a success of strategic communication than as a bourgeois-democratic upheaval
driven by colonial societal conflicts. In this way, Goodwin exemplifies the
continuation of the ideological school. This tradition has lost its core
intellectual focus and now persists through cultural history, communication
analysis, and political technique.
The Marxist Position: Ideas as the Expression of Class
Forces
A Marxist analysis acknowledges the valuable contributions
of Bailyn, Wood, and Goodwin. It values their honest engagement with ideas and
their opposition to the cynical reductionism often seen in modern academia.
Nonetheless, it emphasises that ideas gain historical significance only when
they align with material interests and social needs.
The American Revolution was a bourgeois-democratic uprising.
Its propaganda functioned as the ideological voice of a rising bourgeois class
opposing monarchical authority. The contradictions within that
system—especially the tension between liberty and slavery—were evident in its
language, silences, and evasive tactics. Bailyn studied the key ideas of
Revolutionary ideology, while Wood investigated its social effects. Goodwin analysed
how these ideas were disseminated.
The ideological school is essential for understanding the
intellectual landscape of the American Revolution, but its focus on idealism
limits its ability to fully interpret the Revolution’s significance. Goodwin’s
Propaganda Wars offers meaningful insight into this tradition, yet it also
reveals its inherent limitations, which are amplified here. “Propaganda does
not float free of the material world… They were the ideological expression of
real social forces.”
This is the core issue. The
American Revolution was primarily a bourgeois-democratic movement, influenced
by the conflicts within colonial society. The pamphlets from Boston radicals,
sermons from New England clergy, and Paine’s fiery speeches were not independent
forces shaping history but rather ideological expressions of various social
classes: a rising colonial bourgeoisie limited by imperial mercantilism,
artisans and mechanics opposing British economic policies, small farmers
fighting taxation and landlordism, and Southern planters wanting westward
expansion but hindered by the Crown.
Goodwin’s emphasis on technique—the “how” of
persuasion—shields the underlying reasons. Why did Paine’s Common Sense strike
such a chord? Why did conspiracy and liberty rhetoric energise urban crowds,
frontier farmers, and some enslaved individuals fleeing to British forces?
These questions cannot be answered solely by examining propaganda. Instead,
they demand a class-based analysis of colonial society. The ideological school
has always faced challenges despite its achievements. It views ideas as the
main drivers of history, rather than as expressions of material interests.
Goodwin’s book, despite its merits, still operates within this idealist
perspective.
The Revolution “From Above”
The subtitle—From the Boston Patriots to George
Washington—reveals a further limitation. It moves from discussing Boston's
radical protests to emphasising Washington, the Virginia planter who represents
the Revolution’s consolidation through elite leadership. “The propaganda wars
were not just Patriots versus Loyalists; they were also… a struggle over what
kind of republic would emerge.”
This is a pivotal moment. The American Revolution, similar
to all bourgeois revolutions, involved a deep tension between the democratic
hopes it sparked and the class interests that ultimately constrained it. The
urban crowds who brought down the George III statue, the workers who enforced
non-importation agreements, and the farmers who later participated in Shays’
Rebellion—these groups drove the Revolution beyond what the colonial elite
found acceptable.
Goodwin describes this trajectory but doesn't question it.
The Revolution is portrayed as a story of growing propaganda rather than as a
conflict in which different class forces competed to influence the new
republic. The ideological perspective often views the Founders as natural
leaders of the Revolution, rather than as representatives of a particular class
whose interests lay in rallying and controlling popular support.
The Silence at the Heart of Revolutionary Rhetoric:
Slavery
No analysis of Revolutionary propaganda can ignore the core
contradiction of 1776: the simultaneous fight for liberty and the perpetuation
of chattel slavery. This was not accidental but a fundamental aspect of a
revolution led by a class that included slaveholders. Revolutionary language
used the metaphor of “slavery” to describe the colonists’ relationship with
Britain, largely ignoring the reality of actual slavery. Jefferson’s initial
objection to the slave trade was removed from the Declaration. Patriot
propaganda aimed to preserve unity among both slaveholders and non-slaveholders
across North and South.
Goodwin recognises this contradiction but does not
incorporate it into his analysis of propaganda. However, the silences,
evasions, and metaphors used in Revolutionary rhetoric were not accidental;
they were crucial for maintaining the ideological unity of a movement led by a
class whose material interests relied on human bondage. As Wood stated in
Empire of Liberty, the tragedy was “preordained from the time of the
Revolution.” The Civil War was the inevitable outcome of the contradiction that
the Revolution could not resolve.
What Goodwin Achieves—and What He Cannot
Goodwin’s book is insightful and well-researched, offering
an engaging look at the mechanics of persuasion. It highlights the roles of
pamphleteers, printers, preachers, and political figures who influenced public
opinion before independence. The book treats the intellectual environment of
the Revolution with seriousness, pushing back against modern academic cynicism.
However, its focus on an idealist framework limits its ability to explain
events fully.
Propaganda was significant because it reflected the material
interests and democratic hopes of large sections of colonial society. It was
effective because, even if imperfectly, it conveyed the emerging bourgeois
order’s challenge to monarchical authority. Seeing propaganda as an independent
force is a mistake; it conflates the form with the underlying social content
and reality.
Conclusion: Toward a Marxist Understanding of
Revolutionary Propaganda
A Marxist view of the American Revolution recognises the
influence of ideas but emphasises that ideas only gain power when linked to
material interests and historical needs. The Revolution was a
bourgeois-democratic uprising that laid the groundwork for capitalist growth,
with its propaganda serving as the ideological expression of this change.
While Goodwin’s Propaganda Wars explores persuasion
techniques, it does not address the class forces behind their effectiveness.
Although a serious work, it remains rooted in the idealist tradition of the
ideological school. To fully understand revolutionary propaganda, one must
consider it within the context of colonial American social structure, the
contradictions of slavery, and the global rise of capitalism. Only then can we
comprehend the Revolution’s true historical logic—and its ongoing significance in
a time when the crisis in American democracy raises questions about social
revolution.
