When I finished reading this superb thesis, I considered it to be the best synthesis of the issues relating to America's transformation from paternal colonialism to egalitarian democracy I had read to date. Wood argues successfully that the American Revolution is an often neglected event in world (eurocentric) history that deserves a place among the French, Russian, and Industrial Revolutions. Then, after digging through my other colonial history books I discovered something: Wood cheats. Well, not really, but he exaggerates. In order to emphasize his thesis, he needs to offer a "before and after" picture of America that is quite wide. He does this by presenting a somewhat incomplete or "biased" view of the North American colonies before the Revolution. He frequently makes reference to the insignificance of the colonial cities, economy, aristocracy, institutions, etc... when compared to the mother country. While such a comparison may lead to obvious conclusions, it presents an artificially diminished view of the colonial society and institutions when considered independently. True, Philadelphia is not, as was not, comparable to London, but that in no way diminishes its contribution to world history. If the colonies were so insignificant, why assemble an army across an ocean to maintain possession? Hofstadter presents a much more objective portrait of colonial conditions.