| While some credit Wendell Phillips as a radical | | | | was a patrician who was an agitator. By |
| figure in the abolitionist movement, history tells a | | | | today’s standards he was somewhat of a |
| different tale. While he was an extremist, his was | | | | limousine liberal. Phillips’ opinions and |
| a true representative of radicalism and the | | | | agenda were not typical of the elite class of his |
| positive changes it can foster. | | | | day. The issues that he stood for were not |
| Wendell Phillips was an important part of the | | | | ones that directly affected him, yet he defended |
| abolitionist movement before and after the Civil | | | | them with rigor and resolve. This is the true |
| War. He was the epitome of the radical wing of | | | | significance of the title of the essay. |
| political thinking at the time. Hofstadter | | | | Wendell Phillips is the epitome of radicalism before, |
| comments that historians have shortchanged | | | | during, and after the Civil War. Radical ideas |
| Phillips’ intellectual prowess and portrayed | | | | were and are an important part of democratic |
| him as a narrow minded radical. Philips was much | | | | politics. They provide a direct foil to the |
| more than most historians credit him as. The | | | | complacency that can develop in a government. |
| title of Hofstadter’s essay Wendell | | | | Radical ideas are not always correct, but they do |
| Phillips: The Patrician as Agitator paints a | | | | promote change. The prospect of change |
| distinct picture of Wendell Phillips’ place in | | | | forces people to confront issues that they would |
| history. Wendell Phillips also illustrates the | | | | have otherwise not confronted in a meaningful |
| importance of a radical element of democracy to | | | | way. Radical ideas are the impetus of modern |
| counteract extreme complacency. Wendell | | | | politics, demanding change and forcing |
| Phillip’s influence in historical events | | | | compromises that benefit both sides. However, |
| provides a fertile ground to examine radicalism as | | | | a majority of any idealistic group is dangerous. If |
| a whole. | | | | radicals controlled the government, unfavorable |
| Hofstadter titled his essay Wendell Phillips: The | | | | results would follow because they would work to |
| Patrician as Agitator for very specific | | | | serve only their own agenda. In a balanced |
| reasons. Wendell Phillips was a patrician. A | | | | governmental system, however, radicals play an |
| patrician is an aristocrat or member of an elite | | | | important, integral, and irreplaceable part in |
| class. Wendell Phillips was not born into poverty, | | | | democracy. |
| but rather into a privileged, well-established | | | | In conclusion, Wendell Phillips is very |
| family. He grew up imbibed in revolutionary | | | | representative of radicalism at its finest. He was, |
| glory, and valued the basic principles of the | | | | as Hofstadter described him, an agitator and |
| constitution for all people. Phillips was certainly an | | | | patrician. This description of Phillips is much more |
| agitator. He incurred the wrath of mobs around | | | | accurate and relevant than most historians’ |
| the country by steadfastly proclaiming his | | | | descriptions of Phillips as a closed minded |
| controversial agenda to supporters and hecklers | | | | extremist. Phillips also accurately represents the |
| alike. It is obvious that Wendell Phillips was both | | | | importance of radicalism in a democratic society. |
| an agitator and a patrician; however Hofstadter | | | | Phillips played a much more important part in |
| had more than two adjectives in mind when he | | | | history than he is credited for and was much |
| titled his essay. The importance of the title lies in | | | | more aware of his actions and shortcomings than |
| how the two adjectives relate. Wendell Phillips | | | | historians formerly believed he had been. |
