The Truth About The American Revolution - Conclusion
Epilogue Volume 1
Reflecting on this book’s previous chapters — chronicling the lead-up to the American Revolutionary War — it comes down to this: who was to blame for the America’s break with Great Britain?
My intention: to present the facts that can guide readers to a more complete understanding of how the most powerful country in Europe lost their 13 North American colonies. In this goal, I’m hardly alone.
A New View
Historians working in the second half of the 20th Century came to include other disciplines. trying to understand the minds and attitudes of past people and societies. * (Arthur Marwick, The New Nature of History; Knowledge, Evidence, Language)
Historian Shawn Lawhorn exemplifies the trend. In his Journal article A Brief Historiography of Britain's Loss of Its 13 American Colonies *, Lawhorn offers valuable insights into the vexing questions surrounding the United States genesis [paragraph breaks added]:
In the past century, there has been a change in opinion among the British historians as to where to lay the blame for the loss of the 13 American colonies. 19th century historians placed the blame heavily on King George III.
Early 20th century historians began to shift the blame to both Parliament and the American Colonies themselves.
Late 20th and 21st century historians acknowledge a number of factors including economics and the mindsets and attitudes of both the American colonists and the British officials all that contributed to the rebellion of the American colonies *
According to Lawhorn, as the study of history has become more methodological and broadened, both in scope and practice, historical opinions begin to change based on new information.
The Whig Theory
Prior to the 1950’s, the “Whig theory” was historians’ prevailing view of the causes of the American Revolution. The analysis portrayed King George III as the villain and the Whig/Patriot Party as the voice of Liberty and reason.
Historians maintained that the passage of the Townshend Acts provoked the anger in the American Colonies, giving rise to the cry “no taxation without representation” throughout the colonies *. (GM Trevalian, Illustrated History of England , NY, David Mc Cay and Co., 1956, first published 1929)
Churchill
Winston Churchill's History of the English-Speaking People reflects a new approach. Churchill places significant emphasis on the role of the Colonies’ radical minority in the eventual war with Britain.
Churchill writes that The Stamp Act did not affect the majority of Colonists. Its major impact was on influential radical Colonists, including newspaper owners bent on spreading anti-British propaganda.
Churchill also rejected earlier historians’ view that Parliament repealed the Townshend Acts in response to their unpopularity within the 13 Colonies.
According to Churchill, Parliament repealed the Acts due to their economic impact on Great Britain; Colonial boycotts following the Townsend Acts caused British exports to fall.
Burdened by the cost of the French and Indian War in the Colonies, the debt-ridden British government couldn’t take the hit. Merchants and investors in England lobbied for repeal. Repeal was not due to unpopularity with citizens .
Churchill singled-out Samuel Adams as the leading anti-British provocateur, spreading anti-British propaganda throughout the colonies, leading to Colonial hatred.
In the 1960’s and 1970’s, Churchill's book fueled the theme that the small minority of American anti-British radicals were largely to blame for the struggle between Parliament and the 13 American Colonies.
In Britain: 1688 to 1815 (NY, Saint Martin's Press 1965), historian Derrek Jarrett agreed with Churchill’s assessment.
Jarret argues that Samuel Adams and other Colonial radicals’ propaganda turned what might have been a few skirmishes into open rebellion. *
Jarrett cites a wide array of economic statistics to support a simple fact: trade benefitted both the Colonies and Great Britain. Regulated trade was mutually profitable .
Despite mutually beneficial trade, the smugglers and corrupt merchants in the 13 American colonies pursued Revolution. Abiding by the international standards of trade in Europe and Great Britain would eat into their illicit, corrupt profits.
The Status Quo
The Colonies understood that taxes/ tarrifs were part of the trade system. The oft-cited tea tax would have cut the cost of American tea in half. Yet Colonial radicals were swayed by the nonsensical propaganda perpetrated by Samuel Adams and the Committees of Correspondence.
Jarrett also holds radical Colonists to account for opposing the Quebec Act, allowing French Canadians to practice Catholicism and settle peacefully in the Louisiana Territory, which Colonists eyed for illegal land speculation.
Radical Colonists were typically Presbyterian or Baptists – who persecuted Anglicans and Catholics they considered Loyalists or Neutrals. (So much for a country founded on freedom of religion.)
In A Concise History of the British Empire (1970, New York, Viking Press), historian Gerald S. Graham writes that Americans understood their economic relationship to the mother country.
Graham contends that the majority of British subjects within the 13 American Colonies didn’t find Parliament’s perfectly legal, pre-Revolutionary War Acts inherently contentious. They valued the relationship and heritage with their Mother country …Great Britain.
Graham writes that the Acts’ repeal had an unintended consequence: emboldening the Colonial resistance. Had the British government stuck to retaining the taxes/ tarrifs the outcome may have been different.*
A Taxing Problem?
Both Graham and Jarrett claim the tea tax would have halved the cost of tea for consumers, only hurting the fortunes of smugglers and corrupt merchants like John Hancock and similarly employed friends of Samuel Adams.
According to Graham, with the exception of Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, no minority ever forced itself so strongly and successfully on a majority as the minority of Patriots in 1775 and 1776. * (ibid).
In Britain's Forging the Nation 1707 to 1837 (London: Yale University Press 2009), historian Linda Colley reminds readers that Parliament had abolished Monarchical power during the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Parliament couldn’t comprehend Colonist’s contention that King George was responsible for their problems.
In The British Imperial Experience 1765 to Present (NY, Basic Books, 1966), Dennis Judd concludes that higher taxes were not a direct cause of the American Rebellion.
By the time America’s Founding Fathers signed The Declaration of Independence, Parliament had withdrawn the contentious Colonial taxes, defusing the issue in the Colonies.
Judd also rejects the assertion that taxation without representation motivated the schism.
The American Colonies were represented through their Colonial Assemblies. The Assemblies refused to enact much-needed taxes; the British Government had to create and administer taxes from Westminster.
Judd points out that up until 1770, only a small minority of Colonists pushed for open revolt or demanded independence. The “movement” caught fire when more radical Colonial leadership emerged.
A minority of Radicals sought to overthrow the prevailing social order for personal power, vehemently opposed by a large contingent later known as Loyalists and Neutrals
In The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power (NY Perseus Books 2002), historian Nial Ferguson writes that Parliamentary taxes weren’t much of a burden to the American Colonies in the first place, and certainly not after repeal. The Navigation Acts increased American exports and profits.
Ferguson concurs with modern historians who believe the Boston Tea Party benefited the smugglers, corrupt merchants and officials who stood to lose money due to the regulated importation of less expensive British tea.
Parliamentary Misstep?
In Was the American Revolution Inevitable? (2011), historian Francis D. Cogliano writes that the repealing of Parliamentary legislation was the major cause of the Rebellion.
By giving in to Colonial pressure, Parliament ceded legislative authority to the 13 American Colonies.
According to Cogliano, if Parliament had stood firm, they could have defeated the few resulting skirmishes. The Loyalist cause would have been sustained. There would have been no American Revolution.
Loyalists
In the following centuries, the 13 Colonies could have been united within the British Empire and later the Commonwealth of Nations.
In Tories: Fighting for the King in America's First Civil War (Harper-Collins, NY, 2011), historian Thomas B. Allen writes that more than eighty-thousand Loyalists left for England during the Revolutionary War (1774 to 1783).
Within a year after the War officially ended, roughly one-hundred-thousand more Americans emigrated out of the Colonies. Most left for Canada; the rest fled to England, Scotland, the West Indies or other British possessions.
When the 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War, the Governor of Canada arranged for some 183 transport ships to ferry Loyalists from New York City to Canada.
The evacuees brought no possessions or money; it was all confiscated by the American rebels. Arriving in Canada, they received warm clothing, a year’s worth of provisions, a house (in the form of planks, nails and window glass), an iron plow and farm equipment.
To accommodate the refugees, the Governor General of Canada, Guy Carlton, created the new province of Upper Canada (today’s province of Ontario for settlement). New Brunswick and Nova Scotia also settled large numbers of American Loyalist refugees.
A Loyalist emigre settling in Kingston, Upper Canada (Ontario) wrote:
“A happier people never lived upon this globe... Here with the protection of kind providence, we were perfectly happy, contented and comfortable.”
Today, four to six million Canadians (about a fifth of the population) claim a Tory ancestor. Many Canadians believe that their nation's traditional devotion to law and civility – the essence of being a Canadian — traces back to their Loyalist roots.
Many of these refugees and their descendents would later defend against the American invasion of Canada in the War of 1812.
The Financial Cost of The American Revolution
From 1776 to 1783, France supplied the United States with millions of livres in cash and credit. France also committed 63 warships, 22,000 sailors and 12,000 soldiers to the war. Forces that suffered relatively heavy casualties.
Before the Battle of Saratoga, Benjamin Franklin had arranged with France to establish shell companies in which to provide at no cost, to the Continental Army all war materials including Charlevoix / Charleville muskets, ammunition, uniforms, footwear, haversacks, canteens and other accoutrement. In 1778 at the conclusion of the Battle of Saratoga, France and soon after Spain officially declared allegiance to the Continental cause and declared war on Great Britain, entering the war with boots on the ground and French as well as Spanish and Dutch navies at war with Great Britain globally. They also provided professional military leadership and military advisors.
During the Revolution, the French Government also provided the Americans with loans, eventually totaling over two million dollars, most of which were negotiated by Benjamin Franklin. (John Adams also secured a loan from Dutch bankers in 1782.)
After the fighting between the Americans and the British ended in 1783, the new U.S. Government lacked sufficient tax authority to secure revenue to pay off its debt.
The American government stopped payments of interest to France in 1785, defaulting on further installments due in 1787. As of this writing, France continues to hold this unpaid debt.
The United States also owed money to the Spanish Government and private Dutch investors.
Despite its precarious financial state, in 1787 and 1788, the Americans focused on paying off the Dutch, the most likely source of future loans. * (Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute United States Department of State,U.S. Debt and Foreign Loans, 1775–1795).
By January 1, 1791, the debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War amounted to $75,463,476.52
Over the following 45 years, the debt grew. (The United States A Brief Historiography of Britain's Loss of its 13 American Colonies November 23rd 2011)
In 1795, the United States was finally able to settle its debts without whole re- payment with the French Government. A transaction accomplished with the help of James Swan, an American banker who privately resold these debts at a profit on domestic U.S. markets. * (Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute United States Department of State,U.S. Debt and Foreign Loans, 1775–1795)
To pay for its significant expenditures during the Revolution, Congress had two options: print more money or obtain loans to meet the budget deficit. In practice it did both, but relied more on the printing of money, leading to hyperinflation.
Author’s Comments
Truth be told, the American road to independence was much more complex and prosaic than most modern instruction acknowledges.
This book has concentrated on the newer learning of our history — particularly between the late 1950s and 2025. It stands in contrast with earlier historic interpretations; turning its back on the sloganeering and jingoism that has dominated teaching of the Early American and Colonial history in America.
I hope that this book stirs some thoughts as to how the new federal sovereignty of the USA was formed and promotes the modern understanding of the American Revolution and its societal impact.
Some readers may continue to favor the traditional views of the causes of rebellion and Independence. Others may conclude that a negotiated compromise and reconciliation with Great Britain may have been the more humane and pragmatic resolution.
An outcome where the United States might have achieved sovereignty with an independent government, but remained a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations like Canada and Australia.
I trust that the preceding chapters reinforce the concept that the American Revolutionary War was America's first civil war. Considering the associated divisiveness, disunity, destruction, financial costs, savagery and casualties inflicted.
We should also have a solid understanding that the American Revolution would not have been successful without the financial and military support of traditional enemies of Great Britain at the time, specifically France, Spain, the Dutch and the Great Northern Alliance.
Without their help from the conflict’s outset, increasing as the war progressed, Great Britain would have defeated the Rebellion in its early stages.
One must choose to accept or reject the conflict of conscience that Colonists’s faced. A mix of ambivalence and solidarity, fueled by fear, apprehension, grief, the loss of property and loved ones and, ultimately, the desire for or rejection of national identity.
Doing so, we should not turn a blind eye to the often brutal tortures and expulsions inflicted upon conscientious Loyalists and neutrals; Acts of terror committed within communities where neighbors embraced the patriotic fervor of the rebellious agitators.
I also hope this enquiry will provoke discussion about the suppression of freedom of the press and religion in the period of the American Revolution. How pamphleteers became powerful through their propaganda, sloganeering and outright deception.
I didn’t write this book to reflect current events. But in the process, I couldn’t help but conclude that many of the experiences of our early Americans are being repeated in 2025 America.
This book was intended to be retained as a reference for those who wish to foster legitimate historical debate and discussion — absent the hagiography, myth, legend and jingoism often attached to the founding of the United States of America.
As stated in the preface, the story of American independence is an elaborate tapestry. The various colors and textures should be appreciated, but not frayed by close-minded patriotism.
Allen C Criner (a.k.a. Pompeius Targo)
Volume II - Rebellion or Reconciliation begins with the Declaration of War issued by the American Colonists on July 4, 1776, offering a modern critical view of the conduct of the Revolutionary War and its immediate aftermath.
Works Cited in this Epilogue
1. Allen,Thomas B.,Tories: Fighting for the King in America's first Civil War, Harper-Collins, NY, 2011
2 Churchill, Winston. A History of the English Speaking Peoples: The Age of Revolution, (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1957).
3 Cogliano, Francis. “Was the American Revolution Inevitable?” Last Modified February 7, 2011.
4. Colley, Linda. Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1897. (London: Yale University Press, 2009).
5. Ferguson, Niall. Empire: The Rise and Fall of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power. (New York: Perseus, 2002).
6. Graham, Gerald S. A Concise History of the British Empire, (New York: The Viking Press, 1970).
7. Green, John Richard. A Short History of the English People. (Toronto: The Copp, Clark Co., 1886).
8. Jarrett, Derek. Britain: 1688-1815, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1965).
9. Judd, Denis. Empire: The British Imperial Experience from 1765 to Present. (New York: Perseus, 1996).
10. Lawhorn ,Shawn, A Brief Historiography of Britain's Loss of it's 13 American Colonies November 23rd 2011.
11' Mackie, Robert L. A Short Social and Political History of Britain. (Toronto: Clark, Irwin, and Co., 1936).
12. Marwick, Arthur. The New Nature of History: Knowledge, Evidence, Language, (Chicago: Lyceum, 2001).
13. Trevelyan, G.M. Illustrated History of England, (New York: David McCay Co., 1955
14. Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute
15. United States Department of State, U.S. Debt and Foreign Loans, 1775–1795 *Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute United States Department of State,U.S. Debt And Foreign Loans, 1775–1795 history@state.gov..
Very informative! A great read.