American Government Study Guide Losco
Colonial Controversy: Examining the British Perspective on the American Revolution in Undergraduate American Government Textbooks George Kotlik Keuka College (Keuka Park, New York) Introduction According to conventional accounts of the American founding, the Sons of Liberty and other high-minded Patriots rallied Americans toward the noble goal of independence from the oppressive British crown in the late eighteenth century. This account is particularly evident in college level American government textbooks, which commonly introduce the origins of democracy in the United States as intimately tied to the cause that drove those who fought in the Revolution. Recent critical perspectives on the motivations of the Patriots have become increasingly common in the historical literature on this period, with significant attention being paid to the British perspective of the American Revolution. Looking at the Revolution from across the Atlantic, scholars have called attention to the elites who led the struggle, including the Sons of Liberty and many who would later be influential at the Constitutional Convention, and have charted their role in manipulating the masses in order to secure the political situation—independence—that would best advance their own material and political gains. Indeed, there is a long-standing emphasis on elite theory in the study of American politics, with some classic contributions, such as that of Charles A. Beard in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, drawing attention to the vested interests of the founding fathers and the entrenchment of those interests in constitutional design. While it seems likely that most American government textbooks offer a critical perspective on the role of elites in U.S.
Politics, especially in the context of increasing concern over the role of money in contemporary politics, it is unclear whether or not they are as likely to connect this perspective to the British account of the Revolution. This paper proposes to analyze coverage of the Revolution in a wide sample of current American government textbooks through content analysis, identification of overall trends in coverage, as well as any specific reference to the British viewpoint. I will look for connections between this data and recent contributions on this viewpoint in both history and political science literature, with the goal of measuring how much consideration is currently being given to this scholarship in American Government college classrooms in the United States.
In doing so, I draw on accounts of biased coverage of history in textbooks to determine what rubrics have been established for evaluating this medium, and examine whether or not such a critique is relevant to this particular case study. “Patrick Henry before the Virginia House of Burgesses,” 1850 (Wiki) Since its earliest settlement, colonial North America, though not initially, thrived under a self-regulating form of government free of any direct rule from a foreign power. This was particularly evident through independent elections of colonial legislatures keen on regulating law and order in the early establishments based on the wishes of the majority. The first form of colonial legislature, and a critically important component of colonial self-rule, was the Virginia House of Burgesses established in 1619. Similarly, the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay exercised their own autonomy through town meetings, mainly at the metropolis church or chapel which was the main form of ministry throughout New England in the 17th century.
In addition, the Mayflower Compact was the first contract signed by these Pilgrims escaping religious persecution symbolizing the first governing document for the Plymouth settlement. Indeed, early European colonization of North America reflects an era of autonomous self-rule which would later affect British attempts to control the colonies in the years prior to the Revolution. The French and Indian War was the spark that set in motion rebellion throughout the colonies. After the devastating war between France and Britain in the dense wilderness of North America, Britain’s treasury was all but depleted. Two signature complications arose from this lack of finances: the first was the Proclamation of 1763, which forbid colonists from settling past the Appalachian Mountains, and the second was the Sugar Act, which levied a tax on the colonists with the aim to share in the tax burden placed heavily on British subjects on the mainland. It is important to note the disproportionate amount of tax between mainland Britain and her North American colonies. The French and Indian War also marked an end to Salutary Neglect, which outlined a laissez faire form of intrusive behavior in colonial affairs to maintain colonial obedience to Crown interests economically and politically.
Following these British edicts, colonial mistrust and hatred swept across the continent, eventually leading to the American Revolution. Among existing literature that advances a critical perspective on the rebellious American Revolution, Great Britain’s position is defended as having maintained its authoritative supremacy over colonial subjects.
Emanuel Leutze’s “Washington Crossing the Delaware” 1851 (Wiki) British rationale behind their motives of intrusion towards colonial affairs in the 18th century marks a distinct division of ideologies across an ocean that separated an Empire from its subjects. New England merchants were the most outspoken towards the colonial commercial regulations concerning taxes, which proved to be the main issue at hand as well as the rallying cry for anti-British sentiments throughout the colonies. The British, however, believed that “the burden should be shared with the colonies on the grounds that they had benefitted from the war French and Indian War.”16 Surely, Crown leaders argued, it was only fair for the people who started a war to have to pay the price of its costly execution.
Furthermore, concerning the tax on tea, “it was a luxury tax, a light duty that the colonies could easily afford.”17 Expanding on the luxury tax, East India Company tea actually sold for less in America in an attempt to resolve the tax issues within the colonies. This soon proved insufficient; the colonists weren’t fighting over a price, but a principle.18 Colonial revolutionary opinion was not driven by taxes, rather it was decreed by the principle ideas of Enlightenment thinkers such as the fundamental natural rights dictated by John Locke.
Moreover, according to the British perspective, their rationale behind taxing the colonies was, “to pay for imperial defense and deployment.”19 The depleted British treasures after the costly French and Indian war left a huge tax burden on the Crown under these circumstances and as such they thought it prudent to refill their coffers through taxes intent on raising revenue. As stated earlier, it is only fair for the people who benefitted from the war to pay for it. Indian problems in the colonies called for solutions, particularly colonial security which required military forces. The British rationalized that notion through a regulation of Indian trade which would help alleviate Indian pressures by, “preventing exploitation of the Indians by white traders, a fertile cause of conflict.”20 Colonial encroachment of Indian lands was a main cause of hostility between the two races.
An example of hostility was Pontiac’s rebellion, an Indian uprising that overpowered most British outposts on the colonial frontier. As a result, the Crown instituted the Proclamation of 1763, prohibiting any westward settlement past the proclamation line which ran the length of the Appalachian Mountains. After a depleted treasury from the French and Indian war, the British could not afford to finance any major military pacification of indigenous peoples in the colonies.
According to Middlekauff, in the eyes of the colonists a standing army was not necessary after the French had been driven into Canada, “unless to be used to force them to yield to such oppressions as unconstitutional taxes.”21 By and large, taxes, governance, and security was the rationale Britain used to interfere in colonial affairs after the French and Indian war. Across the Atlantic Ocean, Great Britain rejected the political rationale behind the colonial call to arms. According to King George III, his primary goal had been to “defend an order of monarchy, hierarchy, religious orthodoxy, and empire.”22 Uniquely, a common rallying cry among the Sons of Liberty was the ‘no taxation without representation’ slogan.
Colonists were discontent with their lack of Parliamentary representation in order to defend their interests from governmental intrusion of their affairs regarding taxation, commerce, and foreign affairs. However, in response to the ‘no taxation without representation’ plea, critical perspectives argue that American colonists were, in fact, represented.
This is known as virtual representation, wherein “the House of Commons represented not just the interest of the small group which elected them, but the interests of commoners everywhere.”23 This particular parliamentary structure existed in order to meet the needs of all British subjects, regardless of social status. That does not imply social status failed to hold any political superiority, rather it was merely the ideology of the House of Commons and the House of Lords to voice the pleas of all English subjects regarding overall British political policy. Nevertheless, British clergymen argued that just because everyone was not individually represented in Parliament, that did not make them a slave.24 Moreover, the House of Commons dictated political action that benefitted Crown subjects as a whole; it did not grant special rights and privileges to one colony over the other.
In other words, its rulings were for the benefit of the Empire as a whole while not focusing its efforts primarily towards a minority benefit. Parliamentary officers went so far as to mock colonist political activity stating that since their colonial subjects knew nothing of British politics, they should not bother concerning themselves in it.25 In The Men Who Lost America: British Leadership, the American Revolution, and the Fate of the Empire, Andrew Jackson O’Shaugnessy presents a very reasonable argument, asking why the British monarchy should have allowed individuals across a vast ocean to dictate British policy. According to this viewpoint, it is absurd to assume that a foreign policy that was so immense that it spanned the entire globe and had proven its might through the establishment of colonies and spheres of influence on virtually every continent would willingly be swayed by the opinions of a minute amount of discontent merchants in North America lamenting over very mundane tax regulations and elevated British intervention in colonial affairs.
It can be said the colonies in North America failed to understand their position as British subjects. Colonists viewed themselves as British citizens with the same rights and privileges as those on the mainland. As British citizens, those privileges come with a price: the right of Parliament to tax. Additionally, an explanation for the elevated British policies prior to the Revolution has a rational basis, grounded in the “reduction of English national debt and defense of the colonies.”26 The heavy burdens placed on the Empire after the French and Indian War were devastating, leading to a heavy taxation of British citizens on the mainland. It was only right to tax the people who not only caused but benefitted from the war fought in the interests of the colonists. This notion is expressed under the “theory of Imperialism” which gives Parliament the right to tax and bring the colonies into submission for the sake of Empire.27 At the time, most Crown officials supported this theory, as it outlined the power of the mother country and how it must be maintained regardless of the special interests of merchants or landowners.
In other words, “to imperialists, the supremacy of parliament over the colonies was an end itself, not merely a means to secure trade for British merchants.”28 The theory of Imperialism brings to light the British standpoint. When looking at the American Revolution through the British perspective, one must take into account the massive extent of the British Empire and how much regulation and maintenance it required.
The American colonies were a minor microcosm Britain had to deal with when compared to her other outposts stretched far across the Caribbean and Asiatic regions. “Surrender of General Burgoyne” by John Trumbull, 1822 (Wiki) Once the shots fired at Lexington and Concord were heard ‘round the world, the American Revolution ensued. Middlekauff argues that the prevailing assumption at the time was that the Americans “were subordinate to Parliament and must be brought under control on the emotions parents often feel over rebellious children. Like inexperienced children, the colonies had misbehaved and must be disciplined.”29 These children were not regarded as colonial subjects. Instead, amongst British officials, it was a shared belief that, “a majority of Americans were loyal, and that the revolution was nothing more than a coup achieved by ‘the intrigues of a few bold and criminal leaders’. An armed faction who had usurped legal authority in an experiment that was likely to end in anarchy.”30 Indeed, the aftermath of the Revolution saw the implementation of the Articles of Confederation exercising very minimal federal power. Lacking any real authority, the Articles drove the colonies into disarray with an economic collapse and a social upheaval, most evident in the Whiskey Rebellion where a large body of farmers rebelled new taxation policies across the colonies enforced under the contemporary United States government to pay off the devastating debt procured from the costly war for independence.
In fact after the Revolution, taxation had drastically increased under the United States compared to the minimal tax placed on the colonies by Britain. Most astutely put, O’Shaugnessy suggests that “the British regarded their opponents as criminals who were committing acts of rebellion and treason that did not entitle them to the usual conventions of war.”31 These rebels were nothing more than a cancerous tumor that had to be expelled in order to reinstitute British authority. Accordingly, the Sons of Liberty were a radical organization whose ideals promoted the decentralization of an established state whose job encompassed regulating commerce, security, and stability among the colonies.
While the American standpoint on the Revolution portrays the British as a hostile foreign invader intent on undermining the fight for liberty, American literature on this period fails to address is the British desire for peace. The British were “especially idealistic about the possibilities of a negotiated settlementThe goal was showing ‘the people of America that the Door was yet open for Reconciliation.’”32 British leadership did not want a prolonged war in North America, as it was apparent that the finances and manpower would prove to be too costly. Identically, Lord George Germain outlined the restoration of “civil government to replace martial law in the British-occupied territories in America.”33 This is what proved to be difficult for British forces operating in North America.
Similarly, O’Shaugnessy discusses British postwar plans for America by avoiding destructive methods of suppression which would antagonize the neutral populace against British control. Furthermore, Britain wanted to, “create the conditions necessary for a harmonious postwar reconstruction of civil government.”34 The American colonies were considered brethren to Britain, as they shared similar customs, ancestry, and beliefs. Comparatively, the American Revolution is considered a civil war in itself, splitting the colonies between political ties: Tories and Patriots. British leadership knew that the key to subduing the populace was to win the hearts of the people. Leadership consistently doubted whether or not it was possible “to conquer the country without having the affections of the people.”35 Winning the hearts of the North American populace was a key goal of Royal forces. Britain’s goals encompassed the eradication of the rebellion and reestablishing commerce with the colonials through peaceful means. Despite their distance, colonial subjects were still considered Englishmen with equal rights and privileges similar to those on the motherland.
Indeed, prior to the outbreak of war in North America in 1776, Crown commanders had anticipated loyalist support, placing them into their military calculations. They hoped loyalist support would provide local geographical information of the land, fill the ranks of British regulars, and assist in policing the vast countryside.
Many Crown Commanders had actually insisted on arming loyalist corps for policing districts under Parliamentary control.36 Unbeknownst to them, loyalist support did not prove to be as effective as anticipated, forcing Crown commanders to utilize British regulars for all military affairs/engagements. The graph outlines exactly what I found when examining biases that emerged from my readings of each textbook. Of the twelve textbooks, five textbooks, the majority, held information written through the lens of colonial sympathetic authors.
These authors understood the motives for rebellion and presented them to promote patriotism among its readers. The ideas presented by these textbooks portrayed the British as oppressive and tyrannical. These ideas are currently being implemented on grade-level students in elementary, middle school, and high school exposing them to bias views on the American Revolution and its founding. The college level textbooks I analyzed that offered this Pro-American viewpoint only delved deeper into the rationale and the motives behind Revolution rather than stating facts that did occur. The bias remained the same as it expanded on what was already taught to the students in their studies during grade school learning. Of the twelve college textbooks analyzed, three of them, representing the minority in this study, offered a mostly neutral viewpoint on the American Founding Era.
These textbooks offered strictly factual information without any bias leaning to one side or the other evident in the writing. These textbooks are important for scholars seeking factual information, however they lack in any form of critical thinking. They provide no perspectives on the Revolution and do little to promote diversity of ideas. Lastly, four of the twelve textbooks promote the Critical British perspective and offer bias that is generated towards promoting the Crown agenda in the North American colonies. These textbooks offer the most substantial amount of information on the material and provide substantial amounts of critical thinking on this topic. Indeed, these textbooks proclaim the colonists fight for independence as unjustifiable and can advance the argument of an Elite-driven revolution not centered on revolutionary ideals represented in the Constitution.
Bias is definitely evident in these textbooks but their rationale is sound to reassure the readers that they have a position that is defendable. Conclusion In summary, my study yielded evidence that not all accounts of the Revolution in our sample of American Government textbooks are created equal. There is a wide gap in coverage, with some of our sample including a critical perspective and arguments that educate their readers on the British side of the events that surrounded independence, and others excluding any mention. What I learned from analyzing the textbooks that offered insight into the British side of the Revolution had a greater level of analysis and number of sources cited, providing a more substantive account of this time period for its readers. The textbooks that were limited to a conventionally positive account, on the other hand, either listed events in chronological order or skimmed the events leading up to the Revolution with little to no analysis backing up their arguments.
As stated earlier in this article, presenting material to a population’s young adults that promotes the ideals and values of the nation is important for creating patriotic sentiments drawing public opinion towards overall nationalism. However, too much nationalism can hinder any critical thinking skills college-level students should be exposing themselves to during their academic studies. This research is important in understanding the way material is presented to college level students. Furthermore, this paper exposes the decisive one-sided bias presented to college level students hindering any critical thinking skills students should be developing at the collegiate level further ostracizing diversity presented to students, diversity that should be encouraged rather than not granted credence at all. As political science and history scholars increasingly challenge conventional accounts of the Revolution in their work, it is important to continue to examine coverage of this time period in the texts that serve as many Americans’ gateway to the subject. About the author George Kotlik is a junior student majoring in Political Science at Keuka College, a small private school in upstate New York. George was born and raised in the Finger Lakes region of New York where he nursed his reading and writing abilities.
Since he was a child, George has always been interested in colonial North American History. He plans on completing his undergraduate studies before moving on to work towards obtaining a Juris Doctorate. Recommended citation Kotlik, George. “Colonial Controversy: Examining the British Perspective on the American Revolution in Undergraduate American Government Textbooks.” Armstrong Undergraduate Journal of History 7, no. 1 (April 2017). Notes 1 Francis O.
Wilcox, “The Introductory Course in Government,” The American Political Science Review 41, 3 (1947): 492-493. 2 Jim Franke and Laurie M. Johnson Bagby, “The American Founding, American Government Textbooks, and Civil Education,” Journal of Political Science Education 1, 2 (2005): 249. 3 Carey, “Introductory Textbooks to American Government,” 175. 4 Carey, “Introductory Textbooks to American Government,” 176. 5 Carey, “Introductory Textbooks to American Government,” 176.
Stroup and William Garriott, “Teaching American Government: An alternative to Ogg and Ray,” PS: Political Science and Politics 30 (1997): 73. 7Franke and Bagby, “The American Founding,” 249. 8 Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy, The Men Who Lost America: British Leadership, the American Revolution, and the Fate of the Empire (New Haven: Yale University Press 2013), 22. 9 Matthew H. Spring, With Zeal and with Bayonets Only: The British Army on Campaign in North America, 1775-1783 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 2008), 5. 10 Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 (New York: Oxford University Press 1982), 49.
11 Dora Mae Clark, British Opinion and the American Revolution (New York: Russell & Russell 1966), 272-273. 12 Clark, 259. 13 Middlekauff, 126. 14 Clark, 127-128. 15 Clark, 129.
16 O’Shaughnessy, 50. 17 O’Shaughnessy, 51. 18 Clark, 74. 19 Clark, 33. 20 Middlekauff, 52.
21 Middlekauff, 129. 22 O’Shaughnessy, 46. 23 Clark, 257. 24 Clark, 258. 25 O’Shaughnessy, 174. 26 Middlekauff, 129.
27 Clark, 208. 28 Clark, 181. 29 Middlekauff, 151. 30 O’Shaughnessy, 98. 31 O’Shaughnessy, 115. 32 O’Shaughnessy, 99.
33 O’Shaughnessy, 192. 34 O’Shaughnessy, 97-98.
35 O’Shaughnessy, 220. 36 O’Shaughnessy, 192.
37 Spring, 3. 38 Spring, 6. 39 Michael Pearson, Those Damned Rebels; The American Revolution as Seen through British Eyes (New York: Putnam 1972), 148. 40 Pearson, 8. 41 Pearson, 9.
42 O’Shaughnessy, 135. 43 James A.
Monroe, and Rogan Kersh, By the People: Debating American Government (Oxford University Press 2014), 64. 44 Theodore J. Lowi, Benjamin Ginsburg, Kenneth A. Shepsle, and Stephen Ansolabehere, American Government: Power and Purpose (W.W. Norton & Company 2014), 36. 45 James Q Wilson, John J.
Dilulio Jr., and Meena Bose, American Government: Institutions and Policies (Cengage Learning 2013) 23. 46 David B. Magleby, Paul Charles Light, Christine L.
American Government Study Guide Losco Regional Park
Nemacheck, Government by The People (New York: Pearson) 34. 47 Karen O’Connor, Larry J. Sabato, Alixandra B. Yanus, American Government: Roots and Reform, 12th Edition (New York: Pearson 2016), 16. 48 Harrison, Brigid, Jean Harris, and Michelle Deardorff, American Democracy Now, 4th Edition.
(New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2016), 37. 49 Cal Jillson, American Government, 8th Edition (Taylor & Francis 2016), 28.
50Joseph Losco and Ralph Baker, American Government 2015-2016, 4th Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill 2015), 18.
Synopsis. Published annually at the start of each year this text provides unmatched currency and is the first student-centered American government text. It provides instructors who normally choose either a big, brief, or essentials text with scholarly, succinct, and conventionally organized core content; and a magazine format that engages students and motivates active participation in our democracy. All this, and at a price that students prefer. What's more, AM GOV is the product of serious scholarship: painstaking student and instructor reviews, surveys, and focus groups, as well as and ethnographic research into student study behaviors, preferences, and needs. AM GOV brings serious fun to American Government through its quality, currency, features, and format. The Texas edition includes 10 additional chapters on the government and politics of the Lone Star State including the Texas Constitution, political parties, the legislature, the governor and executive branch, the judicial system, local government, and financing state government.
The new 2010 edition offers an exciting new feature called First 100 Days which showcases the actions of the Obama administration during the first 100 days, and applies fundamental concepts of American Government to this historic presidency.