The American Revolution Reconsidered

Eric Robson looks at the constitutional background - and legacies - of the American Revolution.

Sir George Otto Trevalyan, whose books on the American Revolution are still standard reading, fostered the argument, drawn from the contemporary opponents of George III, that the American colonists rebelled because they were the first to feel the full force of the King’s assault upon liberty. Their revolution “was a defensive movement, undertaken on behalf of essential English institutions (genuine national self-government and real ministerial responsibility) against the purpose and effort of a monarch to defeat the political progress of the race,” their success prevented —so this argument runs—a similar effort being made in Great Britain. The realities of the British constitution in the eighteenth century have since been revealed by Professor Namier; a careful reading of the manuscript sources of the reign of King George III likewise contradicts many of the conclusions that have been drawn about his attitude towards the American colonies, and on the struggle between them and Great Britain.

To continue reading this article you will need to purchase access to the online archive.

Buy Online Access  Buy Print & Archive Subscription

If you have already purchased access, or are a print & archive subscriber, please ensure you are logged in.

Please email if you have any problems.