So You Say You Want a Revolution?

I find it striking that, as presented in episode two of John Adams, the case for independence is distinctly underwhelming. In particular, the point that a rebellion which can only succeed with foreign assistance is as likely to result in domination by France as in freedom from Britain seems like an important cautionary note. What's more, favored by hindsight and the example of Canada and Australia, the imagine of a non-independent America as destined to be slowly-but-surely ground into a state of tyranny looks wrong.

Conversely, however, the British seemed to be badly missing the big picture as the crisis approached -- risking a very valuable series of possessions over some relatively trivial policy issues. Taking the long view, independence looks more like the somewhat tragic result of short-sighted thinking on both sides than like a heroic triumph for the forces of liberty.

Which is a long way of saying, is there a book out there about the revolutionary era people would recommend that's not in the "no this guy was the best founding father!" genre?

Comments

Have a look at Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly." One section discusses the American revolution from the British point of view, analyzing what caused them to make such a muck of it.

Posted by dogsbody | March 23, 2008 5:21 PM

Bernard Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the Revolution

Posted by Cap and Gown | March 23, 2008 5:21 PM

Have they shown the part yet where Ronald Reagan appears and creates the United States of America just after carving the Grand Canyon with his tears?

Posted by El Cid | March 23, 2008 5:23 PM

How about The Radicalism of the American Revolution by Gordon Wood?

The Bailyn suggestion sounds good too, but this may be more entertaining. As a non-historian, I thought that Wood's book was fun.

Posted by golddog | March 23, 2008 5:24 PM

A thoughtful, insightful post from Matt. I knew if I kept checking I'd see one of these again eventually. Nice work.

One question though: to what extent were the subsequent treatments of Canada and Australia by Britain informed by the American Revolution? Did the British treat the Canadians (and, later) the Australians more equitably than they would have had they not seen the result of their (to use an anachronistic adjective) Spitzerish treatment of their American colonists?

Posted by Fred | March 23, 2008 5:26 PM

Well, my memory of American history is pretty faded, but didn't Franklin propose that the Colonies should be given seats in Parliament?

Since the colonists were so overwhelmingly of British stock in that era, this hardly seems so objectionable, and probably would have totally quashed any revolutionary sentiment.

Posted by RKU | March 23, 2008 5:27 PM

Don Cook, The Long Fuse. One thing to consider in the comparison to Canada and Australia is that the British may have learned something about what not to do in relations with colonies from the revolution. That their experience was not so bad may be as much the result of our experience as a counter example to its necessity.

Posted by Marc Foster | March 23, 2008 5:27 PM

I think the examples of Canada and Australia are a little problematic.

Isn't it almost certainly the case that these relationships developed precisely because of what happened with America?

And it seems to me that the British treatment of Boston and the Intolerable Acts were a justification for armed resistance, particularly if you look at the general trajectory.

And there are lots of other problematic consequences with the US remaining with Britain. How would abolitionism have played out, for example? An interesting historical counterfactual, certainly.

Posted by PTS | March 23, 2008 5:30 PM

El Cid, those were the tears of communists. Get it right.

Posted by lfv | March 23, 2008 5:31 PM

Re "is there a book out there about the revolutionary era people would recommend that's not in the "no this guy was the best founding father!" genre? "
------------
The US Army's "American Military History" --Chapters 3-5 --written by their Center of Military History.

Available online at http://www.history.army.mil/books/amh/amh-toc.htm

Cuts through the bullshit with the Army's cold, clear-eyed assessment of the Order of Battle that the Army brings to any situation. Assesses the economic and political factors as well.

Some excerpts:
-------------
"In the summer of 1780 the American cause seemed to be at as low an ebb as it had been after the New York campaign in 1776 or after the defeats at Ticonderoga and Brandywine in 1777. Defeat in the south was not the only discouraging aspect of patriot affairs.

In the north a creeping paralysis had set in as the patriotic enthusiasm of the early war years waned. The Continental currency had virtually depreciated out of existence, and Congress was impotent to pay the soldiers or purchase supplies.

At Morristown, New Jersey, in the winter of 1779-8O the army suffered worse hardships than at Valley Forge. Congress could do little but attempt to shift its responsibilities onto the states, giving each the task of providing clothing for its own troops and furnishing certain quotas of specific supplies for the entire Army.

The system of "specific supplies" worked not at all. Not only were the states laggard in furnishing supplies, but when they did it was seldom at the time or place they were needed. This breakdown in the supply system was more than even General Greene, as Quartermaster General, could cope with, and in early 1780, under heavy criticism in Congress, he resigned his position.

Under such difficulties, Washington had to struggle to hold even a small Army together. Recruiting of Continentals, difficult to begin with, became almost impossible when the troops could neither be paid nor supplied adequately and had to suffer such winters as those at Morristown.

Enlistments and drafts from the militia in 1780 produced not quite half as many men for one year's service as had enlisted in 1775 for three years or the duration. While recruiting lagged, morale among those men who had enlisted for the longer terms naturally fell. Mutinies in 1780 and 1781 were suppressed only by measures of great severity.

[Don Williams Note: Washington had to turn his line of cannon onto his own men , then force the enlisted mutineers to execute their leaders under the Roman principle of "decimation"]

Germain could write confidently to Clinton: "so very contemptible is the rebel force now . . . that no resistance . . . is to be apprehended that can materially obstruct . . . the speedy suppression of the rebellion . . . the American levies in the King's service are more in number than the whole of the enlisted troops in the service of the Congress."

The French were unhappy. In the summer of 1780 they occupied the vacated British base at Newport, moving in a naval squadron and 4,000 troops under the command of Lieutenant General the Comte de Rochambeau.

Rochambeau immediately warned his government: "Send us troops, ships and money, but do not count on these people nor on their resources, they have neither money nor credit, their forces exist only momentarily, and when they are about to be attacked in their own homes they assemble . . . to defend themselves." Another French commander thought only one highly placed American traitor was needed to decide the campaign.

Clinton had, in fact, already found his "highly placed traitor" in Benedict Arnold, the hero of the march to Quebec, the naval battle on the lakes, Stanwix, and Saratoga. "Money is this man's God," one of his enemies had said of Arnold earlier, and evidently he was correct.

Lucrative rewards promised by the British led to Arnold's treason, though he evidently resented the slights Congress had dealt him, and he justified his act by claiming that the Americans were now fighting for the interests of Catholic France and not their own.

Arnold wangled an appointment as commander at West Point and then entered into a plot to deliver this key post to the British. Washington discovered the plot on September 21, 1780, just in time to foil it, though Arnold himself escaped to become a British brigadier.

Arnold's treason in September 1780 marked the nadir of the patriot cause. In the closing months of 1780, the Americans somehow put together the ingredients for a final and decisive burst of energy in 1781. Congress persuaded Robert Morris, a wealthy Philadelphia merchant, to accept a post as Superintendent of Finance, and Col. Timothy Pickering, an able administrator, to replace Greene as Quartermaster General.

Greene, as Washington's choice, was then named to succeed Gates in command of the Southern Army. General Lincoln, exchanged after Charleston, was appointed Secretary at War and the old board was abolished. Morris took over many of the functions previously performed by unwieldy committees.

Working closely with Pickering, he abandoned the old paper money entirely and introduced a new policy of supplying the army by private contracts, using his personal credit as eventual guarantee for payment in gold or silver. It-was an expedient but, for a time at least, it worked.

Greene's Southern Campaign

It was the frontier militia assembling "when they were about to be attacked in their own homes" who struck the blow that actually marked the turning point in the south.

Late in 1780, with Clinton's reluctant consent, Cornwallis set out on the invasion of North Carolina. He sent Maj. Patrick Ferguson, who had successfully organized the Tories in the upcountry of South Carolina, to move north simultaneously with his "American Volunteers," spread the Tory gospel in the North Carolina back country, and join the main army at Charlotte with a maximum number of recruits.

Ferguson's advance northward alarmed the "ova-mountain men" in western North Carolina, southwest Virginia, and what is now east Tennessee. A picked force of mounted militia riflemen gathered on the Catawba River in western North Carolina, set out to find Ferguson, and brought him to bay at King's Mountain near the border of the two Carolinas on October 7.

In a battle of patriot against Tory (Ferguson was the only British soldier present), the patriots' triumph was complete. Ferguson himself was killed and few of his command escaped death or capture. Some got the same "quarter" Tarleton had given Buford's men at the Waxhaws.

King's Mountain was as fatal to Cornwallis' plans as Bennington had been to those of Burgoyne. The North Carolina Tories, cowed by the fate of their compatriots, gave him limited support.

The British commander on October In 1780, began a wretched retreat in the rain back to Winnsboro, South Carolina, with militia harassing his progress. Clinton was forced to divert an expedition of 2,500 men sent to establish a base in Virginia to reinforce Cornwallis."

Posted by Don Williams | March 23, 2008 5:32 PM

El Cid, those were the tears of communists. Get it right.

Posted by lfv

No, you're thinking of the Danube river. In the Grand Canyon, Reagan cried His tears because he knew that someday liberals would think the Canyon formed via natural processes, and that made Him sad.

Posted by El Cid | March 23, 2008 5:38 PM

Canada and Australia seem to have turned out fine. On the other hand, India was reduced to poverty and afflicted with periodic famines that lasted until the end of the Raj and Ireland had its population cut in half by death and emigration due to starvation.

Posted by Julian Elson | March 23, 2008 5:40 PM

It never seemed to me that the colonists' stated grievances were all that severe -- taxation was actually quite mild, and the expense of protecting the colonies from France had to be met -- or that the stated problem, lack of Parliamentary representation, was that serious an issue. Even a tolerably fair number of colonial representatives in Parliament would have been outvoted handily, resulting in the same taxes, etc.
The real problem was that the colonies had barely been governed, in any real sense, for a long time. When push came to shove, the colonists simply wanted to run their own show, and what more justification did they need than that they wanted it?

Posted by CJColucci | March 23, 2008 5:41 PM

One of the great questions of the next era of humanity is what will happen to the notion of internal revolution. The American Revolution is generally regarded as a righteous overthrow of an oppressive government. In contemporary times, though, the notion of a people turning against their government in order to create a new and better one for themselves has essentially become anathema. In particular, the intellectual left, such as it is, is just as resistant to those kind of liberation movements as conservatives are. Because any revolution can now be effectively rendered anathema by labeling it a terrorist movement, liberal commissars such as Matt now are among those condemning attempts to overthrow oppressive governments through violent action, whereas his counterparts in an earlier age would have supported those attempts.

As has been widely noted, September 11th was a gift to status quo governments everywhere. And, indeed, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 you saw increased brutal crackdowns by the Chinese against the Tibetans, Russia against the Chechens, etc. One of the weirder aspects of the post-September 11th world is the ratcheting up of democratic rhetoric, combined with the utter rejection of the most common means, historically, of establishing democracy. What the John Adams miniseries should remind us is that, as much as we should (and I do) condemned attacks on civilians by nonstate actors, we have a) an obligation to equally condemn state violence against civilians (or be like those supporting British oppression of colonialists), and b) to make sure that our zeal to oppose terrorism doesn't make us the enemy of internal revolutionary movements everywhere. That is, after all, where this country came from, and is in fact the means of achieving permanent democracy most of the time.

(And just to get this out of the way now, yes, the American revolutionaries most certainly did target civilian Tories, often brutally. Their businesses were burned, their lives were threatened, and they were frequently tortured or murdered.)

Posted by Freddie | March 23, 2008 5:43 PM

I think Fred and PTS make strong points regarding the American revolution's role in the treatment and emancipation of Canada and Australia from British rule. I mean Britain controlled many countries for years after (India, for example), so I think there is certainly reason to believe that they would have continued to attempt to remain autonomous of the Americas for many decades. With that said, I think quite clearly the founding fathers could have reached a compromise with Britain that gave the colonies representation in Parliament and a good deal of autonomy in the colonies. Would this have been a better course of action? I don't know, but it's interesting to consider. Oh and John Adams has been really strong so far. Why can't any other TV network make anything half as decent as what HBO airs?

Posted by Eric the Political Hack | March 23, 2008 5:44 PM

Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly is a splendid book, and a section of it does address the Revolutionary War, but she offers a fuller treatment in The First Salute.

Posted by Jim Clark | March 23, 2008 5:52 PM

Didn't Churchill theorize that if unity had been maintained (by the British gov't had given the Americans seats in Parliament, maybe?), the eventual result would have been a transatlantic Great Britain, with its power centered in New York, and the British isles (more or less) the colony of the North American government? He thought that would have been a good thing, IIRC.

Posted by Jim | March 23, 2008 5:52 PM

Anyone else think that the theme music of John Adams seems to have been, to put it politely, strongly influenced by the music in Michael Mann's version of The Last of The Mohicans?

Posted by Fred | March 23, 2008 5:54 PM

Taking the long view, independence looks more like the somewhat tragic result of short-sighted thinking on both sides than like a heroic triumph for the forces of liberty.

Tragic?! I can see the case that independence was avoidable on both sides. But that alone doesn't make it tragic.

I could (and will, if you want) list everything that was unique and worthwhile and exemplary about the American Revolution. And it turned out that the worst fears (domination by France) of the anti-independence faction didn't really pan out . . . so how is the result tragic?

Posted by southpaw | March 23, 2008 5:58 PM

Check out Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis. The book focuses on several "crucial" stories that helped shape a country in its infancy, from a secret dinner that helped determine where the capital would end up, to Washington's Farewell Address, to the Hamilton v. Burr "incident", to the reasoning for tabling the slavery issue for the time being. He doesn't focus one of the founding members more than the other. When I finished the book for the first time, I felt like I had a better understanding of how truly lucky we are to have had this group of leaders at this point in our history. A truly amazing book.

Posted by Shaun | March 23, 2008 6:08 PM

This one is good...

Shy, J.W.,(1990). A people numerous and armed: reflections on the military struggle for American independence. [Ann Arbor]: University of Michigan Press

Posted by Jacob Poushter | March 23, 2008 6:08 PM

Another vote for the "The Long Fuse". It's told from the British perspective. It's fantastic. Pretty much everything in it was news to me.

Also great is "A Struggle for Power: The American Revolution" by Theodore Draper. It's about the build up to the war and has a lot from the British perspective. It also avoids the "the best founding father" trap and has tons of great quotes from the time. And lot of fun facts. For example, did you know that the colonial governors were appointed by the King, but paid by colonial assemblies? And that the colonial assemblies never paid them, so after all while they stopped even coming to America? That's how weak the British grasp on America was.

Posted by Chris M | March 23, 2008 6:12 PM

Might not be want you have in mind. but I was fascinated by 'The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence'

Posted by Mike | March 23, 2008 6:13 PM

The examples of Canada and Australia are problematic. The thirteen colonies--especially with the progress and promise of westward expansion--were a latent great power, something many of the founding fathers recognized. Canada and Australia never were. There was never any stable equilibrium in which that rising great power could be governed from across the seas, the depth of lack of depth of the immediate grievances aside.

Posted by Matt | March 23, 2008 6:19 PM

. . . and a third chimes in for Don Cook's "The Long Fuse" (not to be confused with the book on WWI with same title).

Posted by Anna K. | March 23, 2008 6:28 PM

For an alternative thought experiment check out "For Want of a Nail" by Robert Sobel, a (fake) history text book of the American Commonwealth supposing a workable peace had been established in the Revolution.

I was always taught in High School that the American Revolution was the culmination of errors on both sides, not a one-sided struggle for liberty.

Posted by Peter G | March 23, 2008 6:35 PM

I was also going to recommend John Shy's "A people numerous and Armed" -- Jacob Poushter beat me to it.

I kinda like the histories written by Army officers who Actually Served in the Revolution versus the fantasies of our modern-day postmodernist sophists.

[Of the later, Witness the hilarious scandal of Michael Bellesiles's "Armed America". See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bellesiles ]

So I recommend Light Horse Harry Lee's "The American Revolution in the South". Harry Lee was a Continental Army officer but his cavalry unit fought alongside one of the three major Partisan units in South Carolina -- Andrew Pickens's militia. (Earlier, Pickens' militia had been part of Daniel Morgan's command that screwed Cornwallis so badly at Cowpens. )

I also recommend John Marshall's "Life of George Washington" --volume 1 is largely an account of the Revolutionary War -- including battles/campaigns in which George Washington was not involved. John Marshall --later first Supreme Court Chief Justice -- was an officer in the Continental Army and obtained some of his material from personal interviews with other Continental officers involved in the campaigns. (He notes, for example , that he had talked with Daniel Morgan and Colonels Howard and Washington for his account of the Battle of Cowpens.)

One caution is that John Marshall was a Continental officer and shared the bias of those officers against the militia.

Posted by Don Williams | March 23, 2008 6:39 PM

Second or third Bernard Bailyn's Ideological Origins of the Revolution. I can't think of another historian of this period quite as good.

Posted by jonnybutter | March 23, 2008 6:41 PM

Although it covers more than the revolution, I'd recommend Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History 1585-1828 by Walter McDougall.

Posted by maryb2004 | March 23, 2008 6:53 PM

Count me in with those who don't think the comparisons to Canada and Australia [and India, for that matter] work all that well. Two factors to consider: (1) whether the colony was a "settler" colony, with large numbers of European [mainly British to begin with] immigrants systematically swamping/expelling/exterminating indigenous inhabitants [US, Canada, Australia] or imposing imperial rule over another population [India]; and (2) timing. What distinguished the Thirteen was, first, that they were early; (2) that they all were majority European settler in population [distinguishing them from the overwhelmingly slave plantation colonies further south]; and (3) that, having been established at a time when England was still a fairly weak Atlantic power, they were established by a form of quasi-private enterprise--joint-stock companies and proprieterships, mainly--which the Crown recruited as allies to serve its interests. For a variety of reasons, ranging from religious [Puritan New England] to the desire to attract settlers [Virginia, etc.] to simply the need for government in remote areas that the Imperium wasn't yet strong enough to control, the colonial promoters established institutions of local governance, and over time these institutions developed a sense of prerogative that would inevitably have clashed with London once the metropole became strong enough to begin seeking to integrate the Empire more tightly. That said, the issues might well have been settled short of war and colonial independence; the colonists benefitted greatly from being British, and until very late were proud patriotic Britons, taking their cues from British culture and justifying their actions using the best British political theory [Franklin, notably, was an ardent imperialist until very late, and indeed his son was the Loyalist Governor of New Jersey]. Lots of colonists, indeed, remained loyalists; in the southern back country, the Revolution had overtones of civil war, as the independence struggle got mixed up with a variety of outstanding issues between frontier farmers and Tidewater gentry. Many Tories wound up fleeing after the end of the Revolution, often to neighboring colonies; hence so-called Upper Canada, whose existence as a continuing part of the Empire owed a great deal to Tory influence [along with the long-standing enmity between the Protestant colonists and Catholic Quebec]. Australia, of course, began as a penal colony; if it worked out OK, it was hardly by initial intent. Sorry to spew this out, but I lecture on this stuff.

Posted by David in Nashville | March 23, 2008 7:00 PM

Check out Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis. The book focuses on several "crucial" stories that helped shape a country in its infancy, from a secret dinner that helped determine where the capital would end up, to Washington's Farewell Address, to the Hamilton v. Burr "incident", to the reasoning for tabling the slavery issue for the time being. He doesn't focus one of the founding members more than the other. When I finished the book for the first time, I felt like I had a better understanding of how truly lucky we are to have had this group of leaders at this point in our history. A truly amazing book.

Posted by Shaun | March 23, 2008 7:01 PM

I also think that the Revolution cannot be really appreciated until you look at the underhanded skullduggery and spycraft/ covert operations that went on.

The rightwing idiots who bleated about "Freedom Fries" were Idiots -- this country would never have come into existence if not for the covert operations of the French.

CIA has an excellent account of this subject -- which kinda gives you the impression that the Founding Fathers were the Al Qaeda of their day.

See
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/intelligence/main.html and

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v14i1a01p_0001.htm

Posted by Don Williams | March 23, 2008 7:06 PM

I am currently reading for my Phd exams in US history and have found Bernard Bailyn's Ideological Origins of the Revolution, Gordon Wood's The Creation of the American Republic, and Charles Royster's A Revolutionary People at War as three very interesting, accessible, and useful works that fit your criteria.
For a good "bottom-up" interpretation of the revolution, see almost any work by Gary B. Nash. Judging from the title, the most recent book by his, The Unknown American Revolution, is probably the most accessible, though I have not read it.

Posted by Dustin | March 23, 2008 7:09 PM

Another recommendation for the Long Fuse. Excellent telling of the story from the British point of view, including the machinations of Parliament. A major point of the story is how much the American mistake reduced the power of the Monarchy vis a vis the Parliament. No doubt this is hugely simplified, and it's not like parliamentary governments are immune to making the same kind of mistake. But it certainly does make the case that many of the brighter MPs knew that the war could have been averted with minor concessions, but the King just wouldn't let it happen on his watch.

Posted by MattNotYglesias | March 23, 2008 7:09 PM

Kenneth Roberts's Oliver Wiswell, originally published in 1940, looks at the Revolutionary period from the perspective of an American Loyalist. Tremendous fiction applauded by the NYT et al. at the time.

Posted by Texas Fish | March 23, 2008 7:11 PM

If you want the "pro" case for the American revolution you cannot do better than Hannah Arendt's On Revolution.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | March 23, 2008 7:17 PM

Read the Declaration of Independence. Seriously. Not just the "we hold these truths to be self-evident" business, but the long section where the Congress lays out the reasons for their action. It wasn't petulance. Taxation without representation is a real, honest, for-true reason for rebellion. As, of course, is the simple desire to run one's own country, as noted above. Canada might have turned out nicely, but they didn't achieve full independence until freaking 1982, when they gained control over their own constitution.

That being said, it is true that a better king and a more sensible government could have headed the war off long before. As the "John Adams" show dramatized, the Congress sent off Dickinson's Olive Branch Petition even after Bunker Hill had been fought. Giving the colonists seats in Parliament would have cut the legs out of the rebellion without robbing the British of the power to tax. George III also could have given the colonies sole power to tax themselves, which might have cost England some money but not as much as they lost when they lost the war. Tuchman's book mentioned above goes into a lot of detail about this, and IIRC draws a parallel between British bungling in America with American bungling in Vietnam.

Posted by Vidor | March 23, 2008 7:24 PM

So You Say You Want a Revolution?

I am begging you to quote the Founding Beatles correctly.

Posted by Tom Maguire | March 23, 2008 7:37 PM

Re: your question, I'd recommend Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis. It's not too long and fits your description nicely.

Posted by IMU | March 23, 2008 7:40 PM

As I expected. You are the heir to Dickenson and the Quakers. I detect the influence of the friends lobby. PS: John Adams is my favorite founding father. The first neocon.

Posted by Eli Lake | March 23, 2008 7:47 PM

As a Canadian I rather like the idea of the American Revolution being aborted and our Yankee cousin’s staying within the empire. Among other things it would have meant that slavery would have ended in America a generation earlier and without violence (the British Empire abolished slavery in 1838). This was possible for two reasons: 1) the American Revolution greatly increased the political power of the Southern planter class (who made up the early presidents and had disproportionate power due to the 3/5ths clause of the constitution) and 2) the revolution enshrined Lockean notions of property rights in the new Republic, making it more difficult to challenge slavery. (In the empire, the crown remained supreme and could therefore override the property “rights” of slave owners in the Caribbean).

Another group that would have benefited from America staying in the Empire are native Indians. The British had a much more conciliatory policy towards native tribes than the land-hungry revolutionaries (see the Declaration of Independence on this point; a big complaint was that the British weren’t allowing the Americans to wipe out the natives). It’s difficult to imagine that if the Americans had stayed as part of the Empire you would have had the horrors of Andrew Jackson and the trial of tears.

Basically, the American Revolution was bad for blacks and Indians but good for white southerners.

As for good historians of the period, yes to Bailyn and Woods. I’d also add Garry Wills, who is very good at overturning clichés. His first Jefferson book Inventing America went too far in downplaying the Lockean roots of the Declaration of Independence; still, its really well written and insightful; as are Wills’s other books.

Posted by Jeet Heer | March 23, 2008 7:49 PM

Had the Brits held on to the colonies, how would they have tackled the slavery question?

After exhaustive research I infer that, post 1833, when slavery was outlawed throughout the British Empire, they would have had a bit of an issue with Southern slavery.

The Brits were neutral in the Civil War - in this alternative history, would a de facto Northern/British alliance lead to a much shorter war?

Or would the North have allied with the South against overbearing British oppression, resulting in a delayed revolution? (Seems less likely to me, but I am an old Yankee...)

Posted by Tom Maguire | March 23, 2008 7:52 PM

I don't know if John Adams was "the first neo-con" but I'd say this his son John Quincy Adams penned words all neo-cons should heed: "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."

Posted by Jeet Heer | March 23, 2008 7:59 PM

Dustin:

Did you think that Nash's The Unknown American Revolution was good? I'm not sure exactly where it was (in TNR I think), but I remember reading a review by Wood where he eviscerated the book. He thought that there were too many factual errors.

Matt:

Your recommendations may vary depending on what you're looking for. Generally books by Bailyn, Wood, and Jack Rakove tend to be both good and accurate. (All three are pulitzer prize winners and have taught at Harvard, Brown, and Stanford respectively. The latter two were students of Bailyn.) They are however written by academic historians writing for a general audience, so that's something that you might want to keep in mind. The style may not be something that you're into.

People have mentioned Ellis (also a pulitzer prize winner), who is also an academic historian, but his books are written in a more informal tone. He's a fantastic writer.

Finally, there are a lot of books written by non-academic historians that may be even more informal. If that's your thing, you might want to check out books written by journalists and other amateur historians.

Posted by golddog | March 23, 2008 8:02 PM

Life in the British Empire wouldn't have been all peaches and cream. The Civil War would not have happened--this is true--but how many more Americans would have died in World War I?

Another unfortunate result of the Revolution never happening was that we would today have a picture of some silly English woman on our money. No, I like having my own country, and I like that we took our country from the English, instead of having them give it to us.

Posted by Vidor | March 23, 2008 8:07 PM

Matt, I'm fascinated by the concept of "tragic" - it'd be interesting to see you expand that...oh well; here's my favorite book in the subject by my old professor Page Smith: A New Age Now Begins.

A.L.

Posted by Armed Liberal | March 23, 2008 8:08 PM

"PS: John Adams is my favorite founding father. The first neocon. "

Except that Adams, as President, made himself very unpopular by NOT pushing for war with France. Unlike the neocons, he knew that unnecessary wars were bad for the country.

Posted by mad6798j | March 23, 2008 8:15 PM

Any one above said John Adams was the first neo-con? I don't see it up there. John Adams had nothing in common with modern neo-cons. As should be seen in upcoming episodes, many of his presidential troubles arose from contortions needed to maintina his policy of staying neutral and out of French English rivalry. That is, staying out of war. He also detested the idea of social aristocracies trying to lead the nation. Which I think is a big idea behind the Straussian branch of the neo-cons.

Adams thought that it was impossible to seperate natural aristorcracy of talent and artificial aristocracy of wealth, power and influence. So, as a true conservative not wanting to interfere with freedom of association and property rights, he could only advise controlling and slowing rise of aristrocracy as much as possible. Eventually the rotteness of an aristocracy of wealth and power could not be stopped and it would corrupt the nation, ending the Republic.

But as a good and true conservative, he accepted this pessimistic attitude as the course of things. With luck the US republic would last longer than other historical republics.

My only thoughts on US vs. Canada, Australia, India, etc: Problem with comparisons is that the later happened with the consequences of bad management of the American crisis in mind. After the American revolution, the English learned what not to do after a colony had reached a tipping point in terms of trouble it could cause.

Posted by John Adams fan | March 23, 2008 8:23 PM

I'll third Tuchman's March of Folly, though my favorite section is on the Rennaissance Popes. She tackles one of the central questions of history: What could those people have been thinking?

In growing older I've noticed most successful proponents of revolution wind up exclaiming "How did we get here? This wasn't what I was planning...." And we're extremely fortunate that we had (thanks to following English common law) a governing class who knew how to hold a constitutional convention, run a local government, hold an election, etc.

Thanks for the recommendations. I'm a great fan of well-done alternate histories.

Posted by Deborah | March 23, 2008 8:24 PM

Dang, mad6798 beat me to it.

Adams also, along with every other founder say war as very dangerous to a republic, and a source of great public and private immorality -indeed, of the most dangerous kinds of depravity.

I can't find the quote, but on keeping the US out of the great French-English conflict, Adams said something to the effect that starting an unnecessary war would be an unbearable moral burden. That sound like a modern day neo-con to you?

Posted by John Adams fan | March 23, 2008 8:30 PM

This is off topic, but the discussion reminds me of my favorite US history meditation: if you love American history, or the US of A, or a good memoir, check out Assassination Vacation by Sarah Vowell. She visits locations important to the lives and deaths of Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley, which should be ridiculous but winds up being a meditation on many things that make this country great, or great despite idiocy, or sometimes just idiotic.

Posted by Deborah | March 23, 2008 8:34 PM

It was Eli Lake that said Adams was "the first neo-con" (a very puzzling statement, I have to say).

It doesn't surprise me that Gordon Wood was down on Nash. Wood is a great historian but he's become a grumpy old man of late, very hostile to new approaches to history (like social history). Very sad to see that happen.

Yes, there is a difference between academic historians and popular ones. The best academic historians are Bailyn, Wood, Nash, Countryman.

Garry Wills is half-way between being an academic historian and a popular historian.

Richard Brookhiser is a good popular historian, although a bit too rah-rah the founders (and of course as a contemporary political commentator he's a nimrod.)

Posted by Jeet Heer | March 23, 2008 8:36 PM

Ask Aboriginal Australians how great their treatment was.

Posted by Fighting Words | March 23, 2008 8:37 PM

"As a Canadian I rather like the idea of the American Revolution being aborted and our Yankee cousin’s staying within the empire. Among other things it would have meant that slavery would have ended in America a generation earlier and without violence (the British Empire abolished slavery in 1838)."

Alternatively, however, this development might have collapsed the Revolution and the Civil War into a single rebellion against British rule by the Southern and Caribbean colonies.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | March 23, 2008 8:40 PM

I can't believe they have left Thomas Paine out of the series so far. Maybe they'll mention "The Crisis," but not a word of "Common Sense." Shameful.

Posted by Felix | March 23, 2008 8:43 PM

"...is there a book out there about the revolutionary era people would recommend that's not in the "no this guy was the best founding father!" genre?"

Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States has a few interesting chapters on the subject.

GREAT book.

Posted by AKBY | March 23, 2008 8:56 PM

I haven't watched the TV series, but understand it is based on John Adams by David McCullough. I read that book, and it seemed to me to be very much popular history in the sense that it made Adams kind of crotchety ol' likeable independent cuss that would be attractive to readers. I wondered when the TV pilot "Old Uncle John" would come out.

'That's uncle joe he's a movin' kinna slow but a loveable old guy', type of portrait. it left out many or his most interesting and controversial beliefs, statements, and arguments. And his quirks that were not lovable in any way.

I think Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams by Joseph J. Ellis, is a popular book on his political ideas that is more accurate and interesting. Certainly not in the sad and juvenile 'my founder rocks and yours sucks' school of US history (which unfortunately includes many very prominent and influential historians).

Posted by John Adams fan | March 23, 2008 8:58 PM

Three books that haven't been mentioned:

The Machiavellian Moment, by J. G. A. Pocock, is about the ideological roots of the Revolution, and takes a similar line to Bailyn and Wood.

Peripheries and Center, by Jack Greene, is about the revolutionary debate and makes the case for the revolution as a matter of British constitutional practice.

The Minutemen and Their World, by Robert Gross is old, but still very good. It's about the revolution in Concord, Massachusetts and the changes that took place there as a result.

Posted by mike | March 23, 2008 9:04 PM

Commnet on attempt at compromise with Britain:
Benjamin Franklin took a whirl at seeking compromise with Britain when he was over there before the Revolution. He got his ass kicked, and his face too for good measure. The public scandal caused by the secret letters he passed on finally sunk his attempt, but it had gone nowhere fast for a long time before that happened.

After licking his wounds in Scotland and writing the first part of his autobiography in an attempt to revive his self-confidence, he returned to the colonies a ardent advocate of revolution.

I would like to think that a peaceful evolution towards independence like Canada, Australia or NZ would have been possible. But England was in no mood to compromise on anything. That the revolution was definitely a social movement at the beginning. If it was co-opted by the wealthy and powerful, and pushy conservative newcomers like John Adams and Hamilton, that came later.

Posted by John Adams fan | March 23, 2008 9:12 PM

The rightwing idiots who bleated about "Freedom Fries" were Idiots -- this country would never have come into existence if not for the covert operations of the French.

Yeah, but the guy who thought the term up (Wayne Gilchrest) repented, which counts for something (he paid a price; for his repentence the GOP have defeated him in the primary this year).

Posted by Glaivester | March 23, 2008 9:14 PM

I second those recommending Bailyn and Wood. Let me add Forrest Mcdonald: "E Pluribus Unum"; "Novus Ordo Seculorum."

"PS: John Adams is my favorite founding father. The first neocon. "

Eli Lake is an ignoramus? Waa?

As for the French dominating the colonies/states in the absence of the British, that seems highly unlikely.

Posted by Mark | March 23, 2008 9:14 PM

I just bought a copy of Robert Middlekauf's "The Glorious Cause." I came across a reference to it recently as the "best single volume history" of the American Revolution. Can't say more until I have a chance to dive in. Anybody else read it?

Posted by evan500 | March 23, 2008 9:30 PM

Re: And there are lots of other problematic consequences with the US remaining with Britain. How would abolitionism have played out, for example?

The British ended slavery in the domains in the 1830s. Had the US been under their rule that probably would have sparked a rebellion in the Southern states, er, colonies, perhaps joined by the planters in the Carribean-- a rebellion the British would have crushed quite handily.
More interestingly, what would the nation ultimately have looked like? My guess is it would have included most but not all of the current US and Canada, but not the Southwest, Alaska or Hawaii. Florida was under British rule in 1776, and only reverted to Spain because of the Revolution. The British would have taken Louisiana to prevent Napoleon from using it against their North American empire. Oregon and British Columbia would have gone to them too. At a guess though there would have been an indpendent Republic of Texas ultimately comprising all the Southwest and supported by California gold and slavery would have survived there well into the late 1800s. Probably also conflict between British North America and Texas. Perhaps the latter might even have allied with Germany in 1914?

Re: On the other hand, India was reduced to poverty and afflicted with periodic famines that lasted until the end of the Raj

India suffered poverty and famine long before the British set foot there. Sure, the Islamized upper classes lived well under the Moguls, but do you think the peasants and dajit had it any better than they did under the Raj?

Re: In contemporary times, though, the notion of a people turning against their government in order to create a new and better one for themselves has essentially become anathema.

Due to the fact that nine times out of ten they replace one unjust, oppressive government with one that is vastly worse. Louis XVI, Nicholas II, Chiang-Kai Shek, and Lon Nol (to name a few) may not have been the most enlightened of rulers, but they are easily preferrable to Robespierre, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot.

Posted by Jonf | March 23, 2008 9:32 PM

I'll add another recommendation to Wood's "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," which is an astonishing account; it'll make a patriot of a die-hard American lefty.

Posted by V. Vecera | March 23, 2008 9:33 PM

Re "PS: John Adams is my favorite founding father. The first neocon"
----------
I'm surprised that no one has remarked on the great facial resemblance between Alexander Hamilton and William Kristol. See http://www.quotedb.com/images/authors/alexander_hamilton.jpg

In spite of his post-war posturing, Hamilton had spent the Revolutionary War as George Washington's secretary. In 1783, He encouraged the Continental Army officer corp to overthrow the Congress -- the Newburgh Mutiny that was only averted by an aghast George Washington at the last minute.

During secret proceedings at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton tried to convince the delegates to replace the American Republic with a Monarchy, calling the British Monarchy "the best government in the world".

Hamilton later tried to bypass President John Adams and enlist Adams' Cabinet in a secret coup -- to exterminate the Democratic Party's leaders by using a federal army ostensibly raised for war with France -- a plot that John Adams joined with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in aborting.

In my opinion, this nation would be much better off today if Congressman Aedanus Burke had exterminated Alexander Hamilton in 1790, as he intended. Unfortunately, the cowardly Hamilton avoided the duel.

Aaron Burr had his flaws, but the nation owes a great debt to Burr's steady hand --when Burr deliberately gut-shot Hamilton on that July 1804 morning.

Posted by Don Williams | March 23, 2008 9:34 PM

Theodore Draper's "A Struggle for Power" does a wonderful job of mining British sources, detailing how unnerved Parliament and the colonial authorities were by the growing economic power of the colonies -- from the late 1600s right up until the Revolution. I highly recommend this book. Some colonial statistician in 1766 documented the demographic trends of the American colonies, and estimated the Colonies would have a population of 64 million people by 1866 (not a bad estimate, by the way!), and concluded the report with a typically mercantilist worry of "whether any revenue whatever, even the greatest that America could possibly produce, either without or with her good will, would compensate the loss of such wealth and power."

Posted by beowulf888 | March 23, 2008 9:50 PM

It may be the case that Canada and Australia went the direction they went because the American Revolution forced London to wake up and take note of the aspirations of its colonies.

A lot of southern farmers were understandably concerned about what independence would bring. They depended on the English tobacco market and didn't have the resources to open markets in Europe if the English decided to try and get their smokes from the West Indies or somewhere. I have about 3 dozen ancestors who served as soldiers or officers in that war; some of of the southern ones (who make up about 60% of them) were Tories before they were Patriots. (Part of it was religion - they tended to be Anglican - and nationalism - but economics played a big role.)

But the north had plenty of reasons to want independence. They had nothing England wanted and were paying high taxes for an imperial protection racket as well as a church to which any number of them - including my 7th great grandfather Reverend Joseph Adams (who by coincidence was John Adams's uncle) didn't belong that had nothing to do with them.

Posted by Linus | March 23, 2008 9:51 PM

Yeah, but the guy who thought the term up (Wayne Gilchrest) repented, which counts for something (he paid a price; for his repentence the GOP have defeated him in the primary this year).

Wikipedia suggests the originators were Bob Ney and Walter Jones.

Don Williams's version of Hamilton's life seems to be an even more exaggerated version of the most anti-Hamiltonian historiographical tradition, which is itself probably several degrees more anti-Hamiltonian than the evidence warrants.

For instance, one might argue that the Newburgh Conspiracy was an attempt to use a mutiny to get taxation powers for the central government (which, it turned out, woudl be necessary), not a coup to overthrow constitutional government. That, so far as I can tell, Hamilton never seriously supported an American monarchy, although he apparently did like the idea of a president who would be elected for life, and was sympathetic to constitutional monarchy in theory. And that there is no particular evidence that Hamilton wanted to "exterminate" the Jeffersonian leaders, or that he viewed the army raised in 1798/99 as a tool for such a purpose.

Hamilton was a strange and often disreputable guy, but we shouldn't take the most paranoid Republican screeds against him as gospel.

Posted by John | March 23, 2008 10:10 PM

Bernard Bailyn,

The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.

It gets, first and foremost, at how the Revolution was as emotional and ideological as anything else -- the need to cut American off from the "corrupt" British empire before it ultimately collapsed (following the cyclical pattern of empires, Greece, Rome, etc.).

It also deals with Revolution as something that happens in the public sphere rather than in the minds of a select few founding fathers.

Finally, this, and Gordon Woods "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" gets at the real stakes of the struggle, a conflict between power and liberty, and the motiv ational power of the idea of fighting for liberty, whatever the cost.

Posted by Colin | March 23, 2008 10:17 PM

Bernard Bailyn,

The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.

It gets, first and foremost, at how the Revolution was as emotional and ideological as anything else -- the need to cut American off from the "corrupt" British empire before it ultimately collapsed (following the cyclical pattern of empires, Greece, Rome, etc.).

It also deals with Revolution as something that happens in the public sphere rather than in the minds of a select few founding fathers.

Finally, this, and Gordon Woods "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" gets at the real stakes of the struggle, a conflict between power and liberty, and the motiv ational power of the idea of fighting for liberty, whatever the cost.

Posted by Colin | March 23, 2008 10:17 PM

Interestingly enough, if the Revolution hadn't occured it is entirely arguable that there would be VASTLY more monarchies and fascists states in europe and the rest of the world than today. The american revolution had a direct impact on french thinking, and in fact Thomas Paine, the greatest revolutionary philosopher of america, was a major figure in the french revolution. The french revolution led to napoleon, who spread the philosophies around europe, which lead to the nationalist revolutions across europe throughout the 1800s. His conquest of spain had a direct impact in that it led to the liberation of the spanish colonies, who were also affected by the american example.

You also have to consider that the revolution was really about a long build up of economic frustrations. ultimately, it was about mercantilism vs capitalism. Long before the Revolution ever occured the english had increadibly self-serving trade policies, by which america had no trade independance and had to sell all goods to england, and could only import goods from and through england. by this, you can argue that we would always have been second class citizens, because that is what mercantilism demands: that the colonies serve the motherland. we were there to service england, not to be part of her. In some ways it was the Revolution that led to the end of mercantilism, and thus the rise of capitalism.

and even if we HAD waited it out, because of the inherent psychology and nature of a motherland/colony relationship, america would be still weaker and politically beholden to england, just like all of the commonwealth nations are. Thus we could not have expanded in the quick manner in which we did, could not have industrialized in the way we did (england's economic dominance relied on our remaining a farming culture, while they industrialized), and could not have come to england's aid in WWI and WWII. america would be a second-rate first-world country, part of the english commonwealth, politically and economically beholden to the english, just like all of the commonwealth nations now.

so if you ask yourself if we should have gone the path of canada, ask yourself if the world would, literally, be as free, democratic, and capitalistic as it is now if the revolution had never occured, and would we have any significance in the world?

Posted by GottSchreit | March 23, 2008 10:32 PM

Re John's comment "And that there is no particular evidence that Hamilton wanted to "exterminate" the Jeffersonian leaders, or that he viewed the army raised in 1798/99 as a tool for such a purpose."
-----------------
See Richard Kohn's "Eagle and Sword" for a historian's argument with citations.

A short summary of Kohn's argument from
http://www.ashbrook.org/books/walling.html :

"This, of course, is not the conventional view of Hamilton. Contemporaries such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams saw Hamilton as a Caesar or a Bonaparte, bent on tyranny at home and conquest abroad. Many of today's historians accept this view. A case in point is Richard Kohn in his book, Eagle and the Sword: The Federalists and the Origins of the American Military Establishment, 1783-1802.

According to Mr. Kohn, Hamilton was the most dangerous man of the founding era, the leader of an extreme faction of American militarists who rejected public opinion in favor of fear as the foundation of the new government.

In Mr. Kohn's view, Hamilton was the “personification of American militarism,” who exploited concerns about security for political gain.

In the final year of the Revolution, he stimulated a mutiny and conspired to launch a coup against the Continental Congress.

As Washington's Secretary of the Treasury in the 1790s, he used force to impose the law and build up the federal government.

Finally, as inspector general under President John Adams, he tried to use the army to advance his own power and dream of greatness.

This threat was unrivaled in American history until “the Reconstruction years and the era of the Cold War.” Only the vigilance of the Jeffersonians and the firmness of President Adams saved the infant republic from Hamilton's militarism. It was a close thing. "

Posted by Don Williams | March 23, 2008 11:10 PM

I can't resist chiming in for a second time, as this sort of "alternative history" speculation is--well, irresistable.

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Burr (I don't know about Franklin--and many others--) all mentioned the prospect of a mighty world power, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They took the measure of the growing--and prospective--country's material resources and growing population, and drew the obvious conclusions. They could be the founding generation of the world's power. And they knew it. That was no small part of why they insisted on dissolution, despite possibly negotiable differences with London.

Posted by Matt | March 23, 2008 11:17 PM

I can't resist chiming in for a second time, as this sort of "alternative history" speculation is--well, irresistable.

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Burr (I don't know about Franklin--and many others--) all mentioned the prospect of a mighty world power, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They took the measure of the growing--and prospective--country's material resources and growing population, and drew the obvious conclusions. They could be the founding generation of the world's greatest power. And they knew it. That was no small part of why they insisted on dissolution, despite possibly negotiable differences with London.

Posted by Matt | March 23, 2008 11:17 PM

missing "greatest" before "power" above

Posted by Matt | March 23, 2008 11:18 PM

Re John's comment "That, so far as I can tell, Hamilton never seriously supported an American monarchy, although he apparently did like the idea of a president who would be elected for life, and was sympathetic to constitutional monarchy in theory "
-----------------
Look at Ferrand's consolidated records of the Constitutional Convention (which includes James Madison's minutes).

1) Go to http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr00198)) and scroll
down to page 288:

Ferrand Record, Vol I, Page 288 -- Hamilton Speaking:

"In his private opinion he had no scruple in declaring, supported as he was by the opinions of so many of the wise & good, that the British Govt. was the best in the world: and that he doubted much whether any thing short of it would do in America.6 "

2) In the above reference, scroll down further to page 292 to see Hamilton's proposal for the Chief Executive:

"The supreme Executive authority of the United States to be vested in a Governour to be elected to serve during good behaviour--the election to be made by Electors chosen by the people in the Election Districts aforesaid The authorities & functions of the Executive to be as follows: to have a negative on all laws about to be passed, and the execution of all laws passed,..."
----------
IN other words, Hamilton proposed that the President SERVE FOR LIFE and that he have at TOTAL VETO over any law passed by Congress --WITH NO PROVISION FOR CONGRESSIONAL OVERRIDE.

If that's not a monarch, what is?

Posted by Don Williams | March 23, 2008 11:46 PM

Gore Vidal's Inevnting A Nation

Posted by saifedean | March 23, 2008 11:47 PM

Matt, though lots of good books mentioned above (I like Draper, btw), I'd really recommend you not to bother. Alas, even you might prefer otherwise, reading too much on the American revolution has a tendency to turn nearly everyone towards a version of right-wing self-congratulation or Doris Kearns Goodwin-style founding father (sister! brother!) worship. Leave well alone. The only novel feature of American government is that it combines the popular vote so casually with the effective political power of the very rich, and Nixonland-style politics is derived directly from the antics of those founding fathers and their myths.

Posted by otto | March 23, 2008 11:48 PM

Don - I know this is one view of Hamilton. It is not, however, the only view of Hamilton, and the particular form of the argument that you are making seems to be considerably stronger than what most current historians would say about him.

Note that your description of Kohn's argument comes from a review of a book which rejects it, and gives a more positive interpretation of Hamilton.

In general, I tend to think that when there are two views of a man - one extremely laudatory and hagiographical, and another which essentially makes him a movie supervillain - they are both probably wrong. Human beings are always a lot more complicated than that, and Hamilton has both good and bad to his credit. Portraying him as a would-be Bonaparte doesn't really go very far towards helping to understand him.

Although I do kind of hope that Rufus Sewell will be playing him in this manner in the miniseries. The "Hamilton as evil mastermind of evil" version makes for a much better foil for Adams, I should think.

Posted by John | March 23, 2008 11:53 PM

Hamilton had 'issues', certainly. He had fever dreams of getting hold of the Army that was considered being raised during Adams' term and taking it through Mexico and South America and liberating it from the chains of slavery. That would have been a nightmare, if he had been given the chance, maybe we would remember him as an American Boneparte, that marched into violent oblivion in the southern hemisphere.

But Hamilton also threw his support behind Jefferson in election of 1800. Said that the 'contemptable hypocrite' Jefferson would disregard his silly political views and do what a good strong president should because he was personally ambitious to leave a good mark in history, and also said Jefferson was basically moral. In the overheated temper of the times, when people of different factions were talking about marching on Washington DC if the election did not go their way, that does not sound like a ruthless monarchist.

But that is just my own thoughts. I am no match for these 'my founder rocks yours sucks' people. McDonald is still around, get him in here to battle for his man. We need a big "Hamilton man' to come to poor old Alex's defense.

Posted by John Adams fan | March 24, 2008 12:04 AM

I went through my serious American revolution history a while back, so I may be a bit dated. But if you ever decide to go in for more than the one-volume basic version, I liked two short books on neglected bits quite a lot: Changes in the Land (about the effects of settlers on NA ecosystems), and What the Anti-Federalists Were For, whose title sums up its contents.

In my experience, anything by Wood is wonderful. Ditto Bailyn.

Posted by hilzoy | March 24, 2008 12:08 AM

I went through my serious American revolution history a while back, so I may be a bit dated. But if you ever decide to go in for more than the one-volume basic version, I liked two short books on neglected bits quite a lot: Changes in the Land (about the effects of settlers on NA ecosystems), and What the Anti-Federalists Were For, whose title sums up its contents.

In my experience, anything by Wood is wonderful. Ditto Bailyn.

Posted by hilzoy | March 24, 2008 12:10 AM

I would think that, in the 18th century context, a monarchy would be someone from a European ruling family who was given a hereditary right to the crown of America. There were people who discussed such a thing at the time, although never very seriously. But, in the context of the times, supporting monarchy would mean wanting Prince Henry of Prussia to be sent over as Hereditary Stadtholder of the United States, or petitioning King George that the Duke of York be sent over to become King.

A head of state with a fixed term of office was not considered to be the sine qua non of a republic in the 18th century - Venice, for instance, had a republic for hundreds of years with a head of state who was elected for life.

At any rate, Obviously Hamilton wanted a stronger executive than we ended up with. On the other hand, note that his model was the British monarchy which, as it turned out, proved very dependent on parliament.

One might argue that, had Hamilton's scheme been enacted, you'd have been much more likely to end up with a parliamentary form of government, where the president, despite vast formal powers, is forced by custom to appoint ministers who command the support of a majority of the legislature.

Note that there is no written statute in Britain which requires this situation - it arose out of the structural realities, which would have been fairly similar in the case of a president elected for life.

Also note that there is nothing in the constitution which says, for instance, that the heads of executive departments cannot be members of congress. The distinctly undemocratic nature of the system proposed by Hamilton might have led to a less presidential form of government.

Posted by John | March 24, 2008 12:13 AM

GottSchreit:

politically and economically beholden to the english, just like all of the commonwealth nations now

Do you really think so? I'd say Australia is beholden militarily and politically to the United States, economically to Japan and China if anyone.

Posted by rmd | March 24, 2008 12:20 AM

I second all the recommendations for Gordon Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution.

It is an excellent work.

Posted by Julien | March 24, 2008 12:28 AM

Don, are you kidding? Burr was the traitor-he was negotiating with the French to lead colonial expeditions throughout America. None of the revolutionary generation trusted him, and for good reason.
The Hamilton thinking that the British had the 'best form of government' is an old Jeffersonian slur, with no evidence behind it.
Did Hamilton risk his life storming the forts at Yorktown to overthrow what he thought was 'the best form of government'?
You do know that Hamilton wrote most of the Federalist papers, right? Have you read any of them? Let's hear which of them you think supports monarchy. In the mud-slinging politics of the 1790s, it's easy to find quotes from both sides, accusing the Federalists or Republicans of being Monarchists or Anarchists, based on private conversations. Most good historians now know that these were exaggerations, driven by the early heat of democratic politics (Hamilton was as involved in these as Jefferson was, only Jefferson was better at acting behind the scenes). It's much harder to back up your monarchist accusations with facts.
Even granting that the Hamilton quote about the executive you just put up was accurate, it says the executive was to serve 'during good behaviour', which I take to mean that the President can be impeached. Monarchs generally cannot be impeached.
Also, if you're right about Hamilton, explain how he was such a close confidant of Washington...who set the precedent for limited Presidential terms. Was Washington just deceived? Would Washington really have left him as his right-hand man if Hamilton had seriously planned to overthrow Congress with a coup? (Remember that Washington quashed that coup, by all accounts).
As for all the other accusations...yes, it's possible that Hamilton overreached in building up the federal government's power. But think about the historical context. At the same time Hamilton was in power, the French revolution was failing brutally. Hamilton was a law-and-order guy, who wanted to avoid that result at all costs. Historians should weigh a slight overreaction to the Whiskey Rebellion, against the establishment of a strong federal government that won the Civil War and established American hegemony over this continent for the last two centuries.

Posted by jamie | March 24, 2008 12:31 AM

Another recommendation for Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly. A key point she makes is that while the British felt like they were entitled to raise taxes to pay for the costs of the French and Indian War, the amount they'd get from increased taxes was trivial compared to the income they got from trade with the colonies, their leading trade partner.

John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, which states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Signed by a Founding Father and ratified by a unanimous vote of the Senate; I'd say that's definitive.

Interestingly, Light Horse Harry Lee was Robert E. Lee's father.

And it seems to me that the British treatment of Boston and the Intolerable Acts were a justification for armed resistance

The armed resistance was a response to the Intolerable Acts.

Posted by croatoan | March 24, 2008 12:42 AM

This is "lighter" than most of the other suggestions offered, but A.J. Langguth's "Patriots" is a good narrative account, starting with James Otis' rumbling kinda-crackpot discontent and moving through to the Constitution.

Posted by NS | March 24, 2008 12:48 AM

A question for Matt: considering your obvious historical ignorance, why are you writing about politics? It's like writing about music without knowing any music before the Beatles. Writing skills aren't enough-you have to actually know what you are writing about. From your initial support of the war to your latest attacks on the democratic process, you've revealed you have nothing to say any actually informed person needs to hear. I won't be back to your site, but really, you shouldn't be back either. Until you've grown up.

Posted by tdraicer | March 24, 2008 12:48 AM

Count me as another supporter of Bailyn's Ideological Origins. I assign it to my US History students, and they really get into it. Middlekauff's Glorious Cause is probably the best overview of the war years out there; it's part of the Oxford History of the United States series, so it's intended to be pretty comprehensive.

Nat Turner

Posted by NatTurner | March 24, 2008 12:56 AM

"Ask Aboriginal Australians how great their treatment was."

Should I ask them while they are drinking themselves into a stupor or while they are molesting their children? Australian aborigines are a benighted people.

Posted by Juan | March 24, 2008 1:09 AM

Regarding how the British came to view the need for "responsible government" (meaning something more like "responsive" than "grown-up"), see Lord Durham's Report. This followed American independence by two generations, and the War of 1812 by one, but two rebellions in Canada by just months.

In Australia the path to responsible government was complicated by differing interests between the civilian government in London and the quasi-private settlement companies given charge of things.

The Raj and Ireland are somewhat farther removed from both these narratives. Obviously both involved a great deal more violence and forcing of hands.

Posted by Dan Hartung | March 24, 2008 1:11 AM

Bailyn, Wood, of course.

Forrest McDonald's Novus Ordo Seclorum, Henry May, The Enlightenment in America, Arthur Schelsinger Sr., Prelude to Independence, The Revolution Remembered edited by John C. Dunn, The Great Rehearsal, Carl Van Doren, The Anti-Federalist Papers, edited by Ralph Ketcham, The Minutemen and Their World, Robert Gross, Essential Works of the Founding Fathers, edited by Leonard Kriegel, Letter From an American Farmer, Crevecouer, The Great Awakening, edited by Heimert and Miller,

The question asked here was a good one for a high school honors class in 1974.

The first hurdle to jump in that long ago history class was the one posed by Matt, and apparently by the TV show he is learning our history from for the first time ever.

Maybe it is still a good question to ask. No wonder conservatives kick our ass on this stuff. We are illiterate.

Posted by scooter | March 24, 2008 1:48 AM

I believe that the Episode 2 Matt refers to is actually Episode 3.

Posted by Steven Healey | March 24, 2008 2:02 AM

The Glorious Cause is a decent military history, but that's it for value, and the campaigns were the least of it.

Iron Tears is worth reading for (usually) badly needed perspective.

I found Draper's book surprisingly useful as a brief overview of the historical context of the "Revolutionary Era."

Posted by rickhavoc | March 24, 2008 2:04 AM

India suffered poverty and famine long before the British set foot there. Sure, the Islamized upper classes lived well under the Moguls, but do you think the peasants and dajit had it any better than they did under the Raj?

Yes, I do: not much better, but somewhat better. British policies, such as those of Robert Bulwer-Lytton (son of Edward "It was a dark and stormy night" Bulwer-Lytton) resulted in more frequent and severe famines than those before the Raj, not to mention that British policy was oriented toward deindustrializing the Indian economy so as to reduce competition with Manchester, while Britain's reliance on high-caste surrogates in administration and jurisprudence strengthened the varna system and various administrative decisions intensified sectarian divisions between Muslims and Hindus.

India before the British came was no paradise, nor was India during the Raj pure hell. One can easily find rulers more enlightened than the Moguls (say... the Federal Republic of Germany since about 1950?), and rulers far worse than the British (Maoist China, Stalinist USSR, etc, spring easily to mind). Ultimately, the Moguls and British fall into a continuum of regimes, like those that have reigned throughout most of history, somewhere between the enlightened and the atrocious. Yet in all, I would say that the Raj was worse for average Indians and worse for India's long-term economic development than what preceded it.

Posted by Julian Elson | March 24, 2008 2:11 AM

If you want an alternate history view, read Harry Turtledove's The Two Georges. Interestingly, the 'North American Union' he describes is a lot like what Jett Heer describes. Conversely, the rest of the world is more akin to what GottSchreit feared: the entire world is ruled by European monarchies.

On the other hand, travelling around in airships in 1976 would be pretty cool. Oh what might have been...

Posted by Joe C | March 24, 2008 2:21 AM

I would recommend Angel in the Whirlwind by Benson Bobrick. I found The Glorious Cause by Middlekauf to be comprehensive, but rather dry.

As to the larger point, in a very real sense, the American revolution was fought because (a) the colonies refused to yield to Parliament's attempt to tax them so long as they were not represented in Parliament and (b) Parliament continued to assert it's right to tax the colonies and would not grant the colonies representation in Parliament. Revolution could certainly have been avoided had either side acquiesced on this point of contention, but neither ever came particularly close to doing so.

Regardless of the magnitude of the tax, the power to tax is truly the power to destroy. The colonists understood this far more than many contemporary historians give them credit. If the colonists could be taxed by a government in which they had no say, they effectually did not have any real property rights. Revolutions have been waged over far less worthy principles. I think it is rather natural for a people to be willing to endure great sacrifice and a low probability of success in a struggle to obtain natural rights to which they believe they are entitled, but are currently being denied.

Posted by bill | March 24, 2008 2:27 AM

If you want to read an interesting account of the Adams miniseries check out Jeremy Stern's at History News Network: http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/48493.html.

About counterfactuals I have some comments to make. Would slavery have been abolished earlier if the American colonies remained under British rule? The easy suggestion is yes, but there are reasons to disagree. If the British had won they would still need some way of maintaining authority over the colonies, and they would have to form some kind of alliance with some Americans to do this. And since they were among the richest of Americans, slaveholders would probably be the key group. After all proslavery ideology would be fairly conservative, and they would be even more so if Jefferson and Madison had to do into exile. Unlike a handful or marginal planters, they would have far more weight in Britain.

The other thing to consider is that even if the British had won, there would still be a financial crisis in France, and therefore probably a French revolution as well. People tend to think of the American Revolution as much more civil and kind than the French Revolution. But it did contain considerable violence and emigration. If you want to read about, you should look at Allan Kulikoff's From British Peasants to Colonial American Farmers, which has a chapter on the subject. It is important to remember that per capita income fell by 40% during the American revolution. A British victory would probably have hurt many Americans. With many Americans in exile in France, the prospect of another civil war in the American colonies during the revolutionary wars could not be ruled out. In fact, this war might have done more to get rid of slavery than waiting for abolition. First off, the Convention abolished slavery, and secondly, Jefferson and Madison and other revolutionaries wouldn't likely have many slaves in exile, and therefore considerable less interest in supporting it.

As for more books on the Revolution, the two most interesting that I've read recently are Terry Bouton's recent monograph on the revolution in Pennsylvania, "Taming Democracy," and Woody Holton's "Unruly Americans." I might add that I disagree with the review of Holton in the latest Nation. The reviewer tends to support the view, one heard in certain leftist circles, that the divisions within American society at the time were unimportant compared to that between slaves and the rest of American society. I agree that Beardian scholarship never fully appreciated this aspect. But I think this view tends to merge too much with the orthodox Republican view that there are no conflicts of interest in capitalist society, with the major exception of slavery which so obviously conflicts with bourgeois ideology. Such a view obviously had pernicious consequences when the freedpeople had to deal not only with their vindictive masters but with the dogmas of the "free market."

I might also question a related view that criticizes the Jeffersonians for their manifest racism. This seems to believe that multiracial democracy was a real possibility and that the Federalists/Whigs were the counter-intuitive route for it. It's not lingering Parringtonianism that makes me dismiss this. There was no major constiuency in the Revolution for this. Indeed, this only became majority opinion in the 1960s, and only very grudgingly. (In the fall of 1964 most white New Yorkers, not a particularly illiberal group of Americans, told pollsters that civil rights was going too far. Since most African-Americans in the ex Confederacy didn't even have the right to vote, and indeed wouldn't get a chance to exercise it for another two years, this certainly puts the rise of Nixon and Reagan into perspective.) It is far more likely that there would be less democracy for white men (especially Catholic immigrants) than more for blacks.

I might also add, since Americans believe their revolution was so much more moral and humane, that this failure of imagination is rather striking. After all, many French revolutionaries were generously liberal and would have been more so if the king of France had not tried to betray them. Many Bolsheviks were more liberal than Lenin, as discussed in Alexander Rabinowitch's recent "The Bolsheviks in Power." I would say their problem was less that Lenin was not a very nice person than that in November 1917 military defeat and imminent economic collapse made democratic government virtually impossible.

Posted by partisan | March 24, 2008 2:42 AM

On Hamilton and life-time presidency.

Well, how to trick up an executive who would properly balance energy and effectiveness without taking it all over was a puzzle to the founders. Who liked the idea of the US presidency at first? Jefferson didn't when he first read the proposed constitution while still in France -call it a 'bad edition of Polish king' and his objections went along some of Hamilton's, though of course Jefferson had a different idea about solutions. Franklin wanted a plural exective (though our de facto experiment along that line these last eight years have not worked out that well).

Hamilton advocated in a draft plan at the convention a very strong and energetic exective, and he asserted that a lifetime office would be the only thing that could ensure that. Whether he was serious or not, or that was a provocative proposal to move the convention out of an impasse is unknown. Hamilton also wanted a very strong House, and advocated for a much wider voting franchise than most of the other founders. He spoke of House elections as if they should be national referenda on the direction of the governemnt. And he wanted them every three years in that same proposal, if I remember correctly.

So not much of monarchist that I can see. And I am no Hamilton man. Maybe a Tenche Coxe man, with Jefferson, and a little John Q thrown in.

Posted by John Adams fan | March 24, 2008 2:52 AM

I would recommend Edmund S. Morgan's The Birth of the Republic for a standard account of the period.

Barbara Tuchman's The First Salute is an interesting alternative viewpoint -- "viewpoint" in the literal sense of looking at events from the perspective of Dutch merchant shipping interests and British naval strategy balancing North America against the (then) more lucrative West Indies.

Posted by STS | March 24, 2008 2:59 AM

I forgot the recommend this one:

The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, Lester J. Cappon (Editor)

If you are interested in what the guy really thought, can't beat it. Why get the dope filtered through some historian?

And check out John Adams - Benjamin Rush letters also, but not sure that is still in print.

Posted by John Adams fan | March 24, 2008 3:14 AM

Patriots: Men Who Started the American Revolution by A.J. Langguth.

Patriots provides an extremely detailed and neutral treatment of the people and major events during and leading up to the Revolutionary war. The accounts are derived largely from primary source documents including first hand accounts found in personal letters, newspapers, court testimony, etc. It's as personal and compelling as a Ken Burns narrative, but the detail provided makes this book more or less a primary source of research itself.

The Boston Massacre, for example, was broken down minute by minute, street by street, with names of the soldiers and civilians who were involved, the tense standoff, the injuries and deaths on both sides, etc. You are left to draw your own conclusion based on the confusion and conflicting stories [to me, it sounded a bit like the shooting at Kent State]

The attention to detail throughout the book makes you feel like you were there, or at least hearing the first hand account from someone who was there, including, for example, asides about the weather or how a speech was received (Patrick Henry's famous "give me liberty or give me death speech" was met with deafening silence).

Did you know that the planners of the Boston Tea Party paid for the lock they broke to access the tea (so they couldn't be accused of damaging any property other than the political objective: tea)? They also had people with brooms who brushed off the participants as they left to make sure they could not be accused of stealing any tea, not even tiny amounts in the folds of their clothes.

The treatment on Samuel Adams is especially illuminating - he was a puritan (small 'p' I think) who admired ancient Sparta, disapproved of dancing and other frivolity, ran a pub (poorly - it was basically a front for his gang and otherwise an economic failure), and was basically the mastermind behind many of confrontations between Bostonians and the British.

Many of the attacks Adams planned were basically acts of terrorism against British government officials, e.g. mobs attacking, ransacking, and burning down the homes of officials as they narrowly escaped for their lives. Not exactly a role model for the kids.

Samuel Adam's main goal was to provoke the British enough that they would send in more troops to the city. It was his belief that day-to-day interaction/conflict between soldiers and civilians would be quickly escalate the conflict and turn most civilians against the British.

[there's a lesson in that. Sound familiar? If you are too weak to defeat your enemy in direct combat, attack them until you finally provoke them into a war of occupation. The occupation itself will turn that country's civilians - and that country's allies - against the occupying enemy as well]

It's a little easier to understand why the British adopted such heavy-handed tactics when you learn about the tactics and crimes that don't normally make it into the bullet-point narratives of the Revolutionary War meant to appeal to American audiences.

As for the HBO show on John Adams, I'm finding it difficult to watch at times because so much context specific to John Adams (and Samuel Adams) is being left out, not to mention the major events themselves like the battle at Concord.

Concord was important for several reasons. First, urban Bostonians were far more hostile to the British than the rural farmers of Massachusetts. When the British fired on the militia at Concord (described by Langguth with considerable detail, context, and suspense), the alarm went up and the rural farmers joined the fight in earnest for the first time.

Second, the tactics used by the farmers (methodically picking off the retreating British while firing from behind walls and trees, guerrilla-style) violated the standard conventions of war held by the British. The British considered it cowardly murder (not unlike the way Americans view IEDs being used against our soldiers in Iraq). A harsh retaliation was almost inevitable.

I strongly and highly recommend this book.

One of the book reviews on Amazon:

This large, very interesting volume has its chapters divided up among events, such as the so-called Boston Massacre, the Battle of Bunker Hill, Saratoga, and Yorktown; main protagonists such as Otis, Adams, Washington, and Jefferson; and themes, such as 'trial' (of the British troops who fired on the crowd in Boston and being defended by Otis and Adams, mainly getting acquitted), 'Betrayal', outlining Arnold's infamous treason, 'Tea' about the tax and the dumping, and 'Farewell' which poignantly tells the sad story of Washington's departure, and disbanding, of the Continental Army that served so long and enduring, the army which he forged and led through eight terribly long years of repeated defeats, hopelessness, and final victory.

The methodology of the author and the organizaton of the work are in itself unique; the level of scholarship is very high and very well-written. It is useful both as a reference work and as a good read. It is easy to follow, doesn't bog down, and is packed with information. It belongs on the bookshelf of all and sundry, Revolutionary enthusiast or not. It is a well-told tale of our beginnings as a nation, being handed a legacy that is a hard act to follow. These worthy gentlemen may truly be America's 'greatest generation.

Posted by Augustus | March 24, 2008 4:09 AM

@Augustus

"there's a lesson in that. Sound familiar? If you are too weak to defeat your enemy in direct combat, attack them until you finally provoke them into a war of occupation. The occupation itself will turn that country's civilians - and that country's allies - against the occupying enemy as well]:"

I know you probably mean OBL, but that required a bit of thought. The first name that reflexively came up was Mao Zedong and his concept of "People's War".

Posted by Jack | March 24, 2008 5:42 AM

Bailyn and Wood are must-reads, but both are conservative in temperment. For a more liberal take, I would recommend Woody Holton's "Forced Founders" and Gary Nash's "Urban Crucible" (the shorter edition) and/or "Race and Revolution." They both deal with the revolutionary moment with far more race/class/gender analysis than the intellectual/high political approach of Bailyn and his student Wood.

Also, Richard Beeman's upcoming book on the constitutional convention should be quite good.

Posted by Philly | March 24, 2008 7:11 AM

Burr by Gore Vidal has thinly veiled contempt for all the founding fathers and is excellent historical fiction. Washington and Madison come off as slightly bumbling. Jefferson and Hamilton come off as total pricks. Burr himself comes off brilliant yet highly flawed.

Posted by Hunter H. | March 24, 2008 8:15 AM

The Raj and Ireland are somewhat farther removed from both these narratives. Obviously both involved a great deal more violence and forcing of hands.

They're also important for hypotheticals. The expansion of Indian interests pre-Raj provided a mercantile alternative to the American colonies. The example of the Anglo-Irish peerage showed why 'taxation and representation' was unsustainable, even if the political will had existed in London: it would have created a class of absentee representatives estranged from their constituents.

(I actually had this discussion with a National Park Service guide beside the Liberty Bell, while waiting to get into Independence Hall: as a Brit who's a fan of John Wilkes, I was happy to play along with the jokes made at my expense. It's a really great place to visit, especially if you're an eighteenth-century junkie.)

As for the question of where the mainland would have stood in the US Civil War and the question of slavery, it's such a difficult thing to unravel, because it needs to address the issues of trade, industrialisation and political rights that dominated Britain during the post-1781 years. Would Britain have industrialised in the same way, concentrating on the same industries, while maintaining an interest over the American colonies? It's really hard to say: we're talking about eighty years of history.

Certainly, the growth of industrial England, and the new political clout of northern (English) industrialists played a significant role in the ambivalent attitude towards southern (American) slavery in the run-up to the US Civil War.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 24, 2008 10:05 AM

I second the vote for Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution, mostly because it shows how the idea of the revolution evolved -- from a narrow set of disagreements with Britain to a more fundamental and wide-ranging social upheaval.

Posted by Jason Lefkowitz | March 24, 2008 10:15 AM

For a bit of deeper historical context, you have got to look at the sequence of British/American military action. A good place to start is with the popular history Crucible of War by Fred Anderson, which looks into the 7 Years War (where Washington got his start as a not very impressive battlefield commander). One thing most accounts of the American Revolution forget is that between 1689 and 1815, the British and the French waged an episodic long-century war, with at least four significant campaigns in the New World -- an sequence of conflict that Winston Churchill accurately called a world war. Our revolution from the British point of view was at least in part an incident in that longer war, which, of course, culminated in more or less total British victory at Waterloo.

Posted by Tom Levenson | March 24, 2008 10:59 AM

For a bit of deeper historical context, you have got to look at the sequence of British/American military action. A good place to start is with the popular history Crucible of War by Fred Anderson, which looks into the 7 Years War (where Washington got his start as a not very impressive battlefield commander). One thing most accounts of the American Revolution forget is that between 1689 and 1815, the British and the French waged an episodic long-century war, with at least four significant campaigns in the New World -- an sequence of conflict that Winston Churchill accurately called a world war. Our revolution from the British point of view was at least in part an incident in that longer war, which, of course, culminated in more or less total British victory at Waterloo.

Posted by Tom Levenson | March 24, 2008 11:01 AM

Samuel Johnson, a Tory opponent of the American Revolution, was right to ask, “"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"(Taxation No Tyranny, 1775)

Posted by Jeet Heer | March 24, 2008 11:10 AM

While prone to excess away from Washington's side, no founding father better observed the emerging world than Hamilton. And if you were only to count the work for which he is best known - Constitutional Law (Federalist Papers) and as Treasury Secretary (Assumption of debts,Report on Public Credit, and Report on Manufacturers)- he would still emerge as a influential figure in practical governace.

While I find Talleyrand an unscrupulous figure, his judgement of men is worth note:

"I consider Napoleon, Fox, and Hamilton, the three greatest men of our epoch, and if I were forced to decide between the three, I would give without hesitation the first place to Hamilton. He divined Europe."
Charles Maurice de Talleyrand [on Alexander Hamilton]

Posted by A Farmer Refuted | March 24, 2008 11:23 AM

The HBO series has come at an odd point in my own personal reading. I just finished Antonia Fraser's biography on Marie Antoinette and I'm currently reading Amanda Foreman's biography on Georgiana Spencer, the Duchess of Devonshire. Both women lived during the time of the American Revolution, so I'm getting a loose international context.

England would have been hard pressed to give the American colonies representative rights without extending the franchise to its own citizens. Essentially, what the colonists were asking for was a political impossibility in the 1770s. To enfranchise the colonies without enfranchising more of the English citizenry would have created anarchy among the emerging middling classes. The middle-classes don't really come into their own until the mid-nineteenth century. England doesn't extend the franchise to people making 50 pounds per year until 1832. Nor did it reevaluate the borough system, adding new boroughs and parliamentary seats until 1832. It was a system that favored the landed gentry not professional men like John Adams.

Posted by LL | March 24, 2008 12:13 PM

Tragic? Why?

You miss the point that the episode is making: the War of American Aggression was already being waged by Britain in classically Imperial fashion. John Adams (the story has it) had been converted from his previous skepticism by seeing his fellow Massachussettsans being slaughtered at British hands. His leadership in the Congress owed to the early clear view of the threat that each Colony could soon enough have had to face separately or together, as the saying goes.

Perhaps this is simply Hollywood-version simplicity, but since you admit to being moved by it, one would thnk you would need to deal with its basic thrust.

Posted by Mike | March 24, 2008 12:25 PM

The John Adams series seems to come directly from the objectivist-style great man theories of history. Though we certainly depend on and revere leaders for their vision, courage, fortitude and judicious use of force, one man does not a revolution make. If anything, the series is a triumph of Adams' own peculiar paranoia about the fate of his legacy.

It's long, and at times very dry, but Sean Wilentz's The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln is a masterful study of the origins, trials, and tribulations of the first century of the American experiment. The section on the development of the Revolution is eye-opening, especially in his insistence on driving all the way down to the local level. It will take a long time to read, but it will also leave you with a profound and sobering account of our (so-called) democratic underpinnings.

Posted by john | March 24, 2008 12:42 PM

The point, Juan, was that British rule wasn't a guarantor to humane treatment of indiginous populations. In fact, in Australia, it was pretty damn shitty, whatever problems they might face today.

Which problems might have a teensy bit to do with the way Australia was colonized in the first place.

Posted by AG | March 24, 2008 2:20 PM

What's more, favored by hindsight and the example of Canada and Australia, the imagine of a non-independent America as destined to be slowly-but-surely ground into a state of tyranny looks wrong.

Except the examples of Canada and Australia evolved in the light of the successful revolutions in America, and far more worrying, in France...

Posted by BruceJ | March 24, 2008 4:16 PM

I enjoyed Three Men of Boston. It covers the pre-war years and the growing stresses in the colonies from the perspective of Boston and the three:
James Otis, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Huchinson. One of the things that I took away from the book was that reconciliation with Parliament was quite unlikely from an early point. Parliament treated the matter of friction with the colonies strictly from the point of view of domestic politics. They were incapable, for the most part, of considering that there could even be other points of view than that of the wealthy merchants and aristocrats who sat. Not unlike the way that the GOP has run the Iraq invasion and occupation as an exercise in domestic political power politics while basically ignoring Iraqi history, population, and opinions.

From reading the comments, I guess that I am going to have to pick up The Long Fuse.

Posted by central texas | March 24, 2008 5:09 PM

I enjoyed Three Men of Boston. It covers the pre-war years and the growing stresses in the colonies from the perspective of Boston and the three:
James Otis, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Huchinson. One of the things that I took away from the book was that reconciliation with Parliament was quite unlikely from an early point. Parliament treated the matter of friction with the colonies strictly from the point of view of domestic politics. They were incapable, for the most part, of considering that there could even be other points of view than that of the wealthy merchants and aristocrats who sat. Not unlike the way that the GOP has run the Iraq invasion and occupation as an exercise in domestic political power politics while basically ignoring Iraqi history, population, and opinions.

From reading the comments, I guess that I am going to have to pick up The Long Fuse.

Posted by central texas | March 24, 2008 5:29 PM