We will begin promptly on the hour.

1
Was the American Revolution Avoidable? An Online
Professional Development Seminar
WELCOME We will begin promptly on the hour.

2

• GOALS
• To deepen understanding of the forces that caused
  the American Revolution
• To provide fresh materials and approaches to
  strengthen classroom instruction

3

• FROM THE FORUM
• Challenges, Issues, Questions
• Was the conflict a revolution or a war for
  independence?
• How did the Revolution affect the rest of North
  America and the rest of the
• British Empire?
• Please see the forum for a response.

4
Jack P. Greene National Humanities Center
Fellow 1986-87, 1987-88, 2009-10 Andrew W.
Mellon Professor Emeritus of the Humanities Johns
Hopkins University Atlantic history Exclusionary
Empire British Liberty Overseas,
1700-1900 (2010) Atlantic History A Critical
Reappraisal (2009) The British Revolution in
America (1996) Explaining the American
Revolution Issues, Interpretations, and
Actors (1995) The Intellectual Construction of
America Exceptionalism and Identity from 1492 to
1800 (1992)

5
Forthcoming 2011
6

• Was the American Revolution avoidable?
• Preliminary Questions
• What were the British Empires component parts?
• How were they held together?
• How was the British Empire organized?

7

• The British Empire
• 1763
• Central kingdom
• England, Wales,
• Scotland
• Ireland
• Thirty-five
• American colonies
• Trading factories
• on the African coast
• Large chunks of
• territory in India
• Strategic sites

8
Gov. Thomas Pownall, The Administration of the
Colonies, 1764 It has been often suggested that
care should be taken in the administration of the
plantations colonies, lest in some future time
these colonies should become independent of the
mother country. But perhaps it may be proper on
this occasion, nay, it is justice to say it, that
if by becoming independent is meant a revolt,
nothing is further from their nature, their
interest, their thoughts. If a defection from the
alliance of the mother country be suggested, it
ought to be and can be truly said that their
spirit abhors the sense of such. . . nothing can
eradicate from their hearts their natural, almost
mechanical, affection to Great Britain, which
they conceive under no other sense, nor call by
any other name, than that of home. Besides, the
merchants are, and must ever be, in great measure
allied with those of Great Britain. Their very
support consists in this alliance. The liberty
and religion of the British colonies are
incompatible with either French or Spanish
government and they know full well that they
could hope for neither liberty nor protection
under a Dutch one. No circumstance of trade could
tempt them thus to certain ruin. Any such
suggestion, therefore, is a false and unjust
aspersion on their principles and affections, and
can arise from nothing but an entire ignorance of
their circumstances.
How was the British Empire organized and held
together in 1763? What ties link the colonies
with Great Britain?
9
Benjamin Franklin on British victories in the
French and Indian War No one can rejoice more
sincerely than I do on the Reduction defeat of
Canada and this, not merely as I am a Colonist,
but as I am a Briton. I have long been of Opinion
that the Foundations of the future Grandeur and
Stability of the British Empire lie in America,
and tho, like other Foundations, they are low
and little seen, they are nevertheless broad and
Strong enough to support the greatest Political
Structure Human Wisdom ever yet erected. Letter
to Henry Home (Lord) Kames, London, 3 January
1760 _____________________________________________
_____________________ Rev. Thomas Barnard,
sermon, Salem, Massachusetts, 25 May 1763 Now
commences the Era of our Quiet Enjoyment of those
Liberties which our Fathers purchased with the
Toil of their whole Lives, their Treasure, their
Blood. Safe from the Enemy of the Wilderness,
safe from the griping hand of arbitrary Sway and
cruel Superstition. Here shall be the late
founded Seat of Peace and Freedom. Here shall our
indulgent Mother, who has most generously rescued
and protected us, be served and honored by
growing Numbers with all Duty, Love and
Gratitude, till Time shall be no more.
How was the British Empire organized and held
together in 1763? What ties link the colonies
with Great Britain?
10
How were these powerful ties so dissipated in
just 12 years to bring the colonies to
rebellion? Might this weakening of traditional
ties been avoided? If so, how?
11
The Revolution is typically seen as a conflict
between Britain and America. But Britain was not
united on the policies that bred colonial
discontent. America did not exist at the time
of the Stamp Act crisis.
12
Gov. Thomas Pownall, The Administration of
the Colonies, 1764 . . . it is essential to
the preservation of the empire to keep the
colonies disconnected and independent of each
other. They are certainly so at present ? the
different manner in which they are settled, the
different modes under which they live, the
different forms of charters, grants, and frame of
government they possess, the various principles
of repulsion ? that these create the different
interests which they actuate, the religious
interests by which they are actuated, the
rivalship and jealousies which arise from hence,
and the impracticability, if not the
impossibility of reconciling and accommodating
these incompatible ideas and claims, will keep
them forever so. . . .
How united were the colonies after the French and
Indian War?
13
John Adams to Mercy Warren, July 20, 1807 The
Principles of the American Revolution may be said
to have been as various as the thirteen States
that went through it, and in some sense as
diversified as the individuals who acted in it. 
How united were the colonies on the eve of the
Revolution?
14
After the French and Indian War, the British
thought that the settler empire in America could
be rationalized and modernized.
15
Thomas Pownall, The Administration of the
Colonies, 1764 The several changes in
interests and territories which have taken place
in the colonies of the European world on the
event of Peace have given a general impression of
some new state of things arising. One cannot but
observe that there is some general idea of some
revolution of events beyond the ordinary course
of things, some general apprehension of something
new arising in the world, of some new channel of
business, applicable to new powers ? something
that is to be guarded against on one hand, or
that is to be carried to advantage on the other.
There is an universal apprehension of some new
crisis forming.
What were the expectations about the future of
Britains American Empire in the wake of the
Seven Years War?
16
Gov. Thomas Pownall, The Administration of the
Colonies, 1764 . . . The people of the
colonies say that the inhabitants of the colonies
are entitled to all the privileges of Englishmen,
that they have a right to participate in the
legislative power, and that no commands of the
crown . . . are binding upon them, further than
they please to acquiesce under such and conform
their own actions thereto that they hold this
right of legislature, not derived from the grace
and will of the crown . . . that this right is
inherent and essential to the community, as a
community of Englishmen and that therefore they
must have all the rights, privileges, and full
and free exercise of their own will and liberty
in making laws which are necessary thereto,
uncontrolled by any power of the crown or of the
governor . . . .
What were the expectations about the future of
Britains American Empire in the wake of the
Seven Years War?
17

• Gov. Francis Bernard, Principles of Law and
  Polity, Applied to the Government of the British
  Colonies in America, 1764
• The external British dominions, without such an
  union, are subordinate to and dependent upon the
  Kingdom of Great Britain, and must derive from
  thence all their powers of legislation and
  jurisdiction.
• 15 . A separate legislation is not an absolute
  right of British subjects residing out of the
  seat of Empire it may or may not be
• allowed and has or has not been granted,
  according to the circumstances of the community.
• 17. No grant of power of Legislation to a
  dependent government, whether it comes from the
  King alone, or Parliament, can preclude the
  Parliament of Great Britain from interfering in
  such dependent government, at such time and in
  such manner as they shall think fit . . .
• 29. The rule that a British subject shall not
  be bound by laws, or liable to taxes, but what he
  has consented to by his representatives, must be
  confined to the inhabitants of Great Britain
  only and is not strictly true even there.
• 68. All external Legislatures must subordinate
  to, and dependent upon, the Imperial Legislature
  otherwise there would be an
• Empire in an Empire.
• 75. Every American government is capable of
  having its Constitution altered for the better.
• 90. The reformation of the American governments
  should not be controlled by the present
  boundaries of the colonies as they
• were mostly settled upon partial,
  occasional, and accidental considerations,
  without any regard for the whole.

How was the British Empire organized and held
together before 1763?
18
Thomas Pownall, The Administration of the
Colonies, 1764 If the colonies are to be
possessed as of right and governed by the crown .
. . then a revision of these charters,
commissions, instructions, so as to establish the
rights of the crown and the privileges of the
people, as thereby created, is all that is
necessary. But while the crown may, perhaps
justly and of right, in theory, consider these
lands and the plantations thereon as its domains,
and as of special right properly belonging to it
. . . While this is the idea on one hand, the
people on the other say that they could not
forfeit nor lose the common rights and privileges
of Englishmen by adventuring under various
disasters and difficulties, under heavy expenses
and every hazard to settle these vast countries,
to engage in untried channels of labor, thereby
increasing the nations commerce and extending
its dominions but that they must carry with
them, wherever they go, the right of being
governed only by the laws of the realm, only by
laws made with their own consent ? that they must
ever retain with them the right of not being
taxed without their own consent or that of their
representatives . . . While these totally
different ideas of the principles whereon the
government and the people found their claims and
rights, remain unsettled and undetermined, there
can be nothing but discordant jarring and
perpetual obstruction in the exercise of them.
What were the expectations about the future of
Britains American Empire in the wake of the
Seven Years War?
19
The New York Petition to the House of Commons,
October 18, 1764 That from the year 1683, to
this Day, there have been three Legislative
Branches in this Colony consisting of the
Governor and council appointed by the Crown, and
the representatives chosen by the people, who,
besides the Power of making Laws for the Colony,
have enjoyed the Right of Taxing the Subject for
Support of the Government. Under this Political
Frame, the Colony was settled by Protestant
Emigrants from several Parts of Europe, and more
especially from Great-Britain and Ireland And as
it was originally modelled with the intervention
of Crown, and not excepted to by the Realm of
England before, nor by Great-Britain, since the
Union the Planters and Settlers conceived the
strongest Hopes that the Colony had gained a
civil Constitution, which, so far at least as the
Rights and Privileges of the People were
concerned, would remain permanent, and be
transmitted to their latest Posterity. It is
therefore with equal Concern and Surprize, that
they have received Intimations of certain designs
lately formed, if possible, to induce the
Parliament of Great-Britain, to impose Taxes upon
the Subjects here, by Laws to be passed there
and as we who have the Honour to represent them,
conceive that this Innovation, will greatly
affect the Interest of the Crown and the Nation,
and reduce the Colony to absolute Ruin it became
our indispensible Duty, to trouble you with a
seasonable Representation of the Claim of our
Constituents to an Exemption from the Burthen of
all Taxes for granted by themselves . . . .
How did colonials respond to the announcement of
Parliaments proposal to tax the colonies and why?
20
The Virginia Petition to the King, Dec. 18, 1764
How did colonials respond to the announcement of
Parliaments proposal to tax the colonies and why?
21
Virginia Remonstrance to the House of Commons
How did colonials respond to the announcement of
Parliaments proposal to tax the colonies and why?
22
Debates in Parliament on the Repeal of the Stamp
Act, February 1765 Charles Townshend, M. P.
representing Harwich He would have put this
debate off if the delay and the use that has been
made of that delay if he had heard any good
reason for it. But he has heard with great
pleasure the right of taxing America asserted and
not disputed. If disputed and given up, he must
give up the word colony for that implies
subordination. He judged the ability of the
colonies from their trade and other circumstances
which are the best pulses of their health and
vigour, and thinks they can bear it perfectly
well. If there is no doubt of the right or the
ability to bear it, what other reason can there
be for putting it off The former delay has
produced no reasons but complaints, no proofs but
questions of the right to be exempted.
What were the divergent interpretations of the
repeal of the Stamp Act, and could they have been
reconciled in negotiations?
23
Debates in Parliament on the Repeal of the Stamp
Act, February 1765 Col. Isaac Barré, M. P.,
colonel in British army had been wounded in
Canada during the French and Indian War
supporter of American rights coined phrase Sons
of Liberty They planted by your care? No!
your oppressions planted them in America. They
fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated and
unhospitable country ? where they exposed
themselves to almost all the hardships to which
human nature is liable, and among others to the
cruelties of a savage foe, the most subtle and I
take upon me to say the most formidable of any
people upon the face of Gods Earth. And yet,
actuated by the principles of true English
liberty, they met all these hardships with
pleasure, compared with those they suffered in
their own country, from the hands of those who
should have been their friends. They nourished
up by your indulgence? They grew by your neglect
of them as soon as you began to care about them,
that care was exercised in sending persons to
rule over them, in one department and another,
who were perhaps the deputies of deputies to some
member of this House ? sent to spy out their
liberty, to misrepresent their actions and to
prey upon them men whose behavior on many
occasions has caused the blood of those Sons of
Liberty to recoil within them men promoted to
the highest seats of justice, some, who to my
knowledge were glad by going to a foreign country
to escape being brought to the bar of a court of
justice in their own. They protected by your
arms? They have nobly taken up arms in your
defense, have exerted a valour amidst their
constant and laborious industry for the defense
of a country, whose frontier, while drenched in
blood, its interior parts have yielded all its
little savings to your emolument benefit. And
believe me, remember I this day told you so, that
same spirit of freedom which actuated that people
at first, will accompany them still.
24
Stamp Act repealed and Declaratory Act passed on
March 18, 1766. Declaratory Act asserts
Parliaments authority of the colonies in all
cases whatsoever. Rockingham, the British
prime minister after Grenville, led the only
administration that was sympathetic to the
colonies from 1763 to 1781. He hoped that once
Parliament has asserted its authority over the
colonies, it would cater to the colonists
expectations and not try to tax them again.
25
British Merchants Warning to Boston Merchants, on
the eve of the repeal of the Stamp Act,
1766 You must be sensible what friends the
Colonies have had in the present Ministry, and
are doubtless informed what pains they have taken
to serve them. It is justice likewise to them to
inform you that they had had great difficulties
to encounter in the cause, the principal of which
were unhappily thrown in by the Colonies
themselves we mean the intemperate
proceedings of various ranks of people on your
side of the water, and the difficulties of
the Repeal of the Stamp Act would have been
much less if they had not, by their violence in
word and action, awakened the honor of Parliament
and thereby involved every friend of the repeal
in the imputation of betraying the dignity of
Parliament. . . If, therefore, you would make the
proper returns to your country, if you have
a mind to do credit to your friends and
strengthen the hands of your advocates, hasten,
we beseech you, to express filial duty and
gratitude to your parent country. . . . But if
violent measures are continued and triumphs on
the point gaind, if it is talked of as a
victory, if it is said the Parliament have
yielded up the Right to exercise its legitimate
power, then indeed your enemies here will have
a complete triumph. Your friends must certainly
lose all power to serve you, your tax masters
probably be restored and such a train of ill
consequences follow as are easier for you to
imagine than for us to describe . . . We have
no doubt that you will adopt the contrary conduct
and inculcate it to the utmost of your influence,
to which we sincerely wish the most extensive
regard may be paid, and that uninterrupted mutual
affection may continue between Great Britain and
her Colonies to the latest ages. We are with
unfeigned sincere regard, Gentlemen, Your
affectionate friends, and humble servants,
Signatures
What were the divergent interpretations of the
repeal of the Stamp Act, and could they have been
reconciled in negotiations?
26
George Mason to the Committee of Merchants, June
6, 1776
27
Richard Bland, An Enquiry into the Rights of the
British Colonies, 1766 It is in vain to search
into the civil constitution of England for
directions in fixing the proper connection
between the colonies and the mother-kingdom . . .
The planting colonies from Britain, is but of
recent date, and nothing relative to such
plantation can be collected from the ancient laws
of the kingdom . . . . From a review . . . of
the charters, and other acts of the crown, under
which the first colony in North America was
established, it is evident, that the colonists
were not a few unhappy fugitives who had wandered
onto a distant part of the world to enjoy their
civil and religious liberties, which they were
deprived of at home, but had a regular
government long before the first act of
navigation enacted by Parliament in 1651, and
were respected as a distinct state, independent,
as to their internal government, of the original
kingdom, but united with her, as to their
external polity, in the closest and most intimate
LEAGUE AND AMITY, under the same allegiance, and
enjoying the benefits of reciprocal intercourse.
How during the Townshend Act crisis did colonial
thinkers begin to specify the boundaries on
British authority over the colonies?
28
During the Townsend Act crisis, from 1767 to
1771, both sides took conciliatory
positions. The Americans pulled back from their
sweeping assertions of the their assemblies
exclusive jurisdiction over all internal
legislation. The British repealed all taxes
except for a token tax on tea and promised to
impose no future taxes.
29
The House have humbly represented to the ministry
British cabinet their own sentiments that
his Majestys high court of Parliament is the
supreme legislative power over the whole
empire that in all free states the
constitution is fixed, and as the supreme
legislative derives its power and authority from
the constitution, it cannot overleap the bounds
of it without destroying its own foundation
that the constitution ascertains and limits both
sovereignty and allegiance, and, therefore, his
Majestys American subjects, who acknowledge
themselves bound by the ties of allegiance, have
an equitable claim to the full enjoyment of the
fundamental rules of the British constitution
that it is an essential, unalterable right in
nature, engrafted into the British constitution,
as a fundamental law, and ever held sacred and
irrevocable by the subjects within the realm,
that what a man has honestly acquired is
absolutely his own, which he may freely give but
cannot be taken from him without his consent
that the American subjects may, therefore,
exclusive of any consideration of charter rights,
with a decent firmness, adapted to the character
of free men and subjects, assert this natural and
constitutional right.
The Massachusetts Circular Letter, 1768
How during the Townshend Act crisis did colonial
thinkers begin to specify the boundaries on
British authority over the colonies?
30
James Wilson, Consideration on the Authority of
Parliament, 1774 What has been already advanced
will suffice to show, that it is repugnant to the
essential maxims of jurisprudence, to the
ultimate end of all government, to the genius of
the British constitution, and to the liberty and
happiness of the colonies, that they should be
bound by the legislative authority of the
parliament of Great Britain. . . . Those who
launched into the unknown deep, in quest of new
countries and habitations, still considered
themselves as subjects of the English monarchs,
and behaved suitably to that character but it
nowhere appears, that they still considered
themselves as represented in an English
parliament, or that they thought the authority of
the English parliament extended over them. They
took possession of the country in the kings
name they treated, or made war with the Indians
by his authority they held the lands under his
grants, and paid him the rents reserved upon
them they established governments under the
sanction of his prerogative, or by virtue of his
charters --no application for those purposes was
made to the parliament no ratification of the
charters or letters patent was solicited from
that assembly, as is usual in England with regard
to grants and franchises of much less importance.
In the crisis created by the Coercive Acts of
1774, what terms, either explicitly or
implicitly, did colonists offer? 
31
From 1771 to 1773 relative peace obtained between
Britain and the colonies. Had practical
commercial considerations trumped abstract
questions of Parliamentary authority? Had
British accommodationists triumphed over
coercivists? Americans did not appear to be
making a revolution.
32
Benjamin Franklin, Rules by Which a Great Empire
May be Reduced to a Small One, 1773 II. So
that the possibility of this separation may
always exist, take special care the provinces are
never incorporated with the mother country, that
they do not enjoy the same common rights, the
same privileges in commerce, and that they are
governed by severer laws, all of your enacting,
without allowing them any share in the choice of
the legislators. III. These remote provinces
have perhaps been acquired, purchased, or
conquered at the sole expense of the settlers or
their ancestors without the aid of the mother
country. If these colonies should happen to
increase her the mother countrys strength by
their growing numbers ready to join in her wars,
her commerce by their growing demand for her
manufactures, or her naval power by greater
employment for her ships and seamen, they the
colonies may probably suppose some merit in
this, and that it entitles them to some favor.
You are therefore to forget it all or resent it
as if they had done you Injury. If they happen to
be zealous Whigs, friends of liberty, nurtured in
revolution principles, remember all that to their
prejudice and resolve to punish it for such
principles, after a revolution is thoroughly
established, are of no more use they are even
odious and abominable. IV. However peaceably
your colonies have submitted to your government,
shown their affection to your interests, and
patiently borne their grievances, you are to
suppose them always inclined to revolt and treat
them accordingly. Quarter troops among them, who
by their insolence may provoke the rising of
mobs, and by their bullets and bayonets suppress
them. By this means, like the husband who uses
his wife ill from suspicion, you may in time
convert your suspicions into realities.
33
Benjamin Franklin, Rules by Which a Great Empire
May be Reduced to a Small One, 1773 VIII. If
when you are engaged in war, your colonies should
vie in liberal aids of men and money against the
common enemy upon your simple requisition, and
give far beyond their abilities. Reflect that a
penny taken from them by your power is more
honorable to you than a pound presented by their
benevolence. Despise, therefore, their voluntary
grants, and resolve to harass them with novel
taxes. They will probably complain to your
parliaments that they are taxed by a body in
which they have no representative, and that this
is contrary to common right. They will petition
for redress. Let the parliaments flout their
claims, reject their petitions, refuse even to
suffer the reading of them, and treat the
petitioners with the utmost contempt. Nothing can
have a better effect in producing the alienation
proposed, for though many can forgive injuries,
none ever forgave contempt.
34
After 1773 the Boston Tea Party and other acts of
resistance intensified accommodationist and
coercivist divisions in Britain.
Accommodationists tried to head off coercive
measures. The Coercive Acts of 1774 turned what
had been a dysfunctional relationship between
Britain and the colonies into a potential
revolution.
35
Bill of Rights, October 1775 First Continental
Congress That the inhabitants of the English
colonies in North America, by the immutable laws
of nature, the principles of the English
constitution, and the several charters or
compacts, have the following RIGHTS Resolved,
N. C. D Latin nemine contra dicente (no one
dissenting) 1. That they are entitled to life,
liberty and property and they have never ceded
to any sovereign power whatever a right to
dispose of either without their consent.
Resolved, N. C. D. 2. That our ancestors who
first settled these colonies were, at the time of
their emigration from the mother country,
entitled to all the rights, liberties, and
immunities of free and natural born subjects
within the realm of England. Resolved, N. C. D.
3. That by such emigration they by no means
forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those
rights, but that they were, and their descendants
now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment
of all such of them, as their local and other
circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy.
Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English
liberty and of all free government is a right in
the people to participate in their legislative
council and as the English colonists are not
represented, and from their local and other
circumstances cannot properly be represented in
the British Parliament, they are entitled to a
free and exclusive power of legislation in their
several provincial Legislatures, where their
right of representation can alone be preserved in
all cases of taxation and internal polity,
subject only to the negative of their sovereign,
in such manner as has been heretofore used and
accustomed But, from the necessity of the case,
and a regard to the mutual interest of both
countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation
of such acts of the British Parliament as are
bona fide, restrained to the regulation of our
external commerce for the purpose of securing the
commercial advantages of the whole empire to the
mother country, and the commercial benefits of
its respective members, excluding every idea of
taxation internal or external, for raising a
revenue on the subjects in America without their
consent.
In the crisis created by the Coercive Acts of
1774, what terms, either explicitly or
implicitly, did colonists offer in the Bill of
Rights in 1774?
36
Declaration of the Causes of Taking Up Arms, July
1775 Second Continental Congress We for ten
years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the
Throne as supplicants. We reasoned, we
remonstrated with Parliament in the most mild and
decent language. But Administration, sensible
that we should regard these oppressive measures
as freemen ought to do, sent over fleets and
armies to enforce them. The indignation of the
Americans was roused, it is true but it was the
indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and
affectionate people. A Congress of Delegates
from the united colonies was assembled at
Philadelphia on the fifth day of last September
1774. We resolved again to offer an humble and
dutiful petition to the King, and also addressed
our fellow subjects of Great Britain. We have
pursued every temperate, every respectful
measure. We have even proceeded to break off our
commercial intercourse with our fellows subjects
boycott nonimportation as the last peaceable
admonition that our attachment to no nation upon
earth should supplant our attachment to liberty.
? This, we flattered ourselves, was the ultimate
step of the controversy. But subsequent events
have shown how vain was this hope of finding
moderation in our enemies. . . . We are
reduced to the alternative of choosing an
unconditional submission to the tyranny of
irritated ministers or resistance by force. ? The
latter is our choice. ? We have counted the cost
of this contest and find nothing so dreadful as
voluntary slavery. ? Honor, justice, and humanity
forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which
we received from our gallant ancestors, and which
our innocent posterity have a right to receive
from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of
resigning succeeding generations to that
wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we
basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.
How in the months after Lexington and Concord did
contrasting interpretations of the problem
produce an impasse?
37
Royal Proclamation of Rebellion, August
1775 Whereas many of Our Subjects in divers
Parts of Our Colonies and Plantations in North
America, misled by dangerous and ill-designing
Men, and forgetting the Allegiance which they owe
to the Power that has protected and sustained
them, after various disorderly Acts committed in
Disturbances of the Publick Peace, to the
Obstruction of lawful Commerce, and to the
Oppression of Our loyal Subjects carrying on the
same have at length proceeded to an open and
avowed Rebellion, by arraying themselves in
hostile Manner to withstand the Execution of the
Law, and traitorously preparing, ordering, and
levying War against Us. . . .
How in the months after Lexington and Concord did
contrasting interpretations of the problem
produce an impasse?
38

• Was the American Revolution avoidable?
• NO
• at least not with the cast of characters in power
  at the time.
• Because
• The Americans
• made their demands non-negotiable.
• The British
• overestimated their military and naval power,
• underestimated the colonies capacity to resist,
• underestimated the depth and breadth of
  colonial resistance,
• insisted upon the omnipotence of Parliament,
• were too protective of Parliamentary honor,
• offered too few concessions too late.

39

• What If . . .
• the British had compromised in honor of the
  commercial and cultural ties that bound the
  colonies to the mother country?
• The colonies would not have revolted and formed
  the United States.
• They probably would have developed into one or
  more self-governing commonwealths like Canada or
  Australia.
• Slavery might have been abolished earlier and
  peacefully, as it was in the West Indies in the
  1830s.
• Perhaps the British would have been more
  respectful of Native American rights.
• Our fascination with the royal family might
  have some credible basis.

40
Thank You