What do you think?
Rate this book
Independence: The Tangled Roots of the American Revolution
An important new interpretation of the American colonists' 150-year struggle to achieve independence
"What do we mean by the Revolution?" John Adams asked Thomas Jefferson in 1815. "The war? That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an effect and consequence of it." As the distinguished historian Thomas P. Slaughter shows in this landmark history, the roots of the Revolution went back even further than Adams may have realized.
In Slaughter's account, colonists in British North America starting in the early seventeenth century chafed under imperial rule. Though successive British kings called them lawless, they insisted on their moral courage and political principles, and regarded their independence as a great virtue. Their struggles to define this independence took many from New England and Nova Scotia to New York and Pennsylvania and south to the Carolinas, colonists resisted unsympathetic royal governors, smuggled to evade British duties, and organized for armed uprisings.
In the eighteenth century―especially after victories over France―the British were eager to crush these rebellions, but American opposition only intensified. In Independence , Slaughter resets and clarifies the terms of this remarkable development, showing how and why a critical mass of colonists determined that they could not be both independent and subject to the British Crown. By 1775–76, they had become revolutionaries―willing to go to war to defend their independence, not simply to gain it.
"What do we mean by the Revolution?" John Adams asked Thomas Jefferson in 1815. "The war? That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an effect and consequence of it." As the distinguished historian Thomas P. Slaughter shows in this landmark history, the roots of the Revolution went back even further than Adams may have realized.
In Slaughter's account, colonists in British North America starting in the early seventeenth century chafed under imperial rule. Though successive British kings called them lawless, they insisted on their moral courage and political principles, and regarded their independence as a great virtue. Their struggles to define this independence took many from New England and Nova Scotia to New York and Pennsylvania and south to the Carolinas, colonists resisted unsympathetic royal governors, smuggled to evade British duties, and organized for armed uprisings.
In the eighteenth century―especially after victories over France―the British were eager to crush these rebellions, but American opposition only intensified. In Independence , Slaughter resets and clarifies the terms of this remarkable development, showing how and why a critical mass of colonists determined that they could not be both independent and subject to the British Crown. By 1775–76, they had become revolutionaries―willing to go to war to defend their independence, not simply to gain it.
512 pages, Paperback
First published June 10, 2014
8 people are currently reading
372 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
September 25, 2014
In his new book on the roots of the American Revolution, Thomas Slaughter centers his argument around the following question: “How did independence become revolutionary in British North America?” While Slaughter examines many causes of the Revolution, his main goal is to show how the colonists evolved from wanting independence as British citizens within the empire to pursuing independence through separation from the empire.
His main argument is that the colonists and the British held mutually incompatible views of the colonists’ rights, sovereignty, and place within the empire. He emphasizes more than most historians that the roots of this conflict were deeply seeded in colonial history going back to the creation of colonial charters. The colonists saw themselves as British citizens and wanted to preserve their tradition of rights, sovereignty over local affairs, and independence from arbitrary British authority. In contrast, the British viewed Parliament as sovereign over all subjects, which made American assertions of independence tantamount to separation from the empire. With neither side budging on these perspectives, revolution was the only plausible outcome. Although this basic argument works nicely, Slaughter’s use of the term independence to describe the colonists’ desire for rights and sovereignty within the empire is potentially confusing. The colonists who were asserting their independence within the empire still depended on Britain in many ways, especially in military affairs. A better term for independence within the empire would be autonomy, which would imply a federalist structure in which the colonists had the rights of British citizens and ran their internal affairs while relying on the British military for security. However, one can understand Slaughter’s choice of “Independence,” given the fact that a book about “Autonomy” and the causes of the American Revolution would not draw nearly as much attention.
Overall, Slaughter succeeds in disentangling the roots of the revolution and the changing concepts of independence. He portrays the history of the colonial-metropolitan relationship as fraught with tension, conflicting priorities, and misunderstanding since the mid-17th century. He shows that the increase of British taxation and interference in the colonies after 1763 exacerbated existing tensions rather than creating tensions from a harmonious relationship. He compellingly notes that a great deal of tension arose not necessarily from the intention of either side to break their relationship, but from contingency and basic human frailties. The colonists grew gradually more independent in their identities and attitudes, even if few before the early 1770’s actually advocated separation from Britain. Whenever the colonists did not like a British decision, they protested on the basis of their rights as British citizens. The question that Slaughter raises is how a revolution can occur even if few colonists intended or wanted it to happen. His subtle answer lies in an analysis of priorities. The colonists feared war, disorder, and separation from the empire, but they valued their liberty more highly than union with Britain and saw growing tyranny as more dangerous than conflict. The realization that their independence, rights, and traditions would be more effectively preserved through separation from the empire than autonomy within the empire was the essential factor in making independence a revolutionary concept by 1776.
Another valuable contribution Slaughter makes to our understanding of the roots of the American Revolution is his international perspective. The link between Britain’s expanding global empire in the mid-18th century and its assertion of authority in the North American colonies emerges clearly from this work. The British had to deal with a set of global priorities and rivalries that often compelled them to intensify their control of and demands upon the colonists. Moreover, they often had to relegate American colonial demands to secondary status in order to achieve grander geopolitical goals. For example, the return of Port Royal and Louisbourg to the French after much colonial blood was spilled to take these fortresses was a logical geopolitical exchange that nonetheless made the colonists feel disrespected and unequal. Slaughter bolsters his portrayal of British and colonial priorities and perspectives as incompatible by adding this international dimension. He allows us to simultaneously feel colonial outrage at growing British crackdowns while understanding the reasonable, global reasons for Britain’s actions.
Slaughter’s essential argument is strong, but his organization suffers from a lack of clear structure. The chapter titles are vague, including ones like “Wars,” “Battlefields,” “Hearts and Minds,” and “Resistance.” The rationale behind these titles is unclear. For example, the chapter on “Wars” covers joint colonial and British campaigns against Louisbourg while “Battlefields” deals with the Seven Years War in North America. For scholars, hazy chaptering makes retracing one’s way through the argument difficult. An additional problem lies in the chronological narrative. Slaughter frequently doubles back to cover aspects of 17th century colonial history that throw the reader off course even if they do fit into his argument. He would have been better off to expand the first few chapters to include an overview of 17th century tensions between colonists and Great Britain across the colonies.
Despite these minor concerns, Slaughter’s Independence is an ambitious, successful, readable book with an admirable historiographical purpose. Striding against the trend of specialization among academic historians, he identifies his book as a “grand synthesis” in a field dominated by short synthesis for students or “unifocal” monographs. Slaughter’s work may rile specialists as well as race and gender historians because of its breadth and conscious omission of most racial and gender history. However, to criticize Slaughter on these grounds would be to fault him for not writing a different book entirely. His purpose was to disentangle the roots of the American Revolution and trace the changing concepts of independence through early colonial history. He does this well and gives us a compelling answer to a fundamental question of American history.
His main argument is that the colonists and the British held mutually incompatible views of the colonists’ rights, sovereignty, and place within the empire. He emphasizes more than most historians that the roots of this conflict were deeply seeded in colonial history going back to the creation of colonial charters. The colonists saw themselves as British citizens and wanted to preserve their tradition of rights, sovereignty over local affairs, and independence from arbitrary British authority. In contrast, the British viewed Parliament as sovereign over all subjects, which made American assertions of independence tantamount to separation from the empire. With neither side budging on these perspectives, revolution was the only plausible outcome. Although this basic argument works nicely, Slaughter’s use of the term independence to describe the colonists’ desire for rights and sovereignty within the empire is potentially confusing. The colonists who were asserting their independence within the empire still depended on Britain in many ways, especially in military affairs. A better term for independence within the empire would be autonomy, which would imply a federalist structure in which the colonists had the rights of British citizens and ran their internal affairs while relying on the British military for security. However, one can understand Slaughter’s choice of “Independence,” given the fact that a book about “Autonomy” and the causes of the American Revolution would not draw nearly as much attention.
Overall, Slaughter succeeds in disentangling the roots of the revolution and the changing concepts of independence. He portrays the history of the colonial-metropolitan relationship as fraught with tension, conflicting priorities, and misunderstanding since the mid-17th century. He shows that the increase of British taxation and interference in the colonies after 1763 exacerbated existing tensions rather than creating tensions from a harmonious relationship. He compellingly notes that a great deal of tension arose not necessarily from the intention of either side to break their relationship, but from contingency and basic human frailties. The colonists grew gradually more independent in their identities and attitudes, even if few before the early 1770’s actually advocated separation from Britain. Whenever the colonists did not like a British decision, they protested on the basis of their rights as British citizens. The question that Slaughter raises is how a revolution can occur even if few colonists intended or wanted it to happen. His subtle answer lies in an analysis of priorities. The colonists feared war, disorder, and separation from the empire, but they valued their liberty more highly than union with Britain and saw growing tyranny as more dangerous than conflict. The realization that their independence, rights, and traditions would be more effectively preserved through separation from the empire than autonomy within the empire was the essential factor in making independence a revolutionary concept by 1776.
Another valuable contribution Slaughter makes to our understanding of the roots of the American Revolution is his international perspective. The link between Britain’s expanding global empire in the mid-18th century and its assertion of authority in the North American colonies emerges clearly from this work. The British had to deal with a set of global priorities and rivalries that often compelled them to intensify their control of and demands upon the colonists. Moreover, they often had to relegate American colonial demands to secondary status in order to achieve grander geopolitical goals. For example, the return of Port Royal and Louisbourg to the French after much colonial blood was spilled to take these fortresses was a logical geopolitical exchange that nonetheless made the colonists feel disrespected and unequal. Slaughter bolsters his portrayal of British and colonial priorities and perspectives as incompatible by adding this international dimension. He allows us to simultaneously feel colonial outrage at growing British crackdowns while understanding the reasonable, global reasons for Britain’s actions.
Slaughter’s essential argument is strong, but his organization suffers from a lack of clear structure. The chapter titles are vague, including ones like “Wars,” “Battlefields,” “Hearts and Minds,” and “Resistance.” The rationale behind these titles is unclear. For example, the chapter on “Wars” covers joint colonial and British campaigns against Louisbourg while “Battlefields” deals with the Seven Years War in North America. For scholars, hazy chaptering makes retracing one’s way through the argument difficult. An additional problem lies in the chronological narrative. Slaughter frequently doubles back to cover aspects of 17th century colonial history that throw the reader off course even if they do fit into his argument. He would have been better off to expand the first few chapters to include an overview of 17th century tensions between colonists and Great Britain across the colonies.
Despite these minor concerns, Slaughter’s Independence is an ambitious, successful, readable book with an admirable historiographical purpose. Striding against the trend of specialization among academic historians, he identifies his book as a “grand synthesis” in a field dominated by short synthesis for students or “unifocal” monographs. Slaughter’s work may rile specialists as well as race and gender historians because of its breadth and conscious omission of most racial and gender history. However, to criticize Slaughter on these grounds would be to fault him for not writing a different book entirely. His purpose was to disentangle the roots of the American Revolution and trace the changing concepts of independence through early colonial history. He does this well and gives us a compelling answer to a fundamental question of American history.
March 25, 2023
This was a book for my Revolutionary America class. This wasn’t easy to get through, but it reframed a lot of information and gave context to events and people in Revolutionary America that I found really interesting. The background it gives to the relationship and tensions between the colonies and Great Britain is invaluable when evaluating the stirrings of revolution.
On a much lighter note, I love how Slaughter referred to the colonists as “conspiracy theorists” and did not hold back when describing all of the crimes they committed against Great Britain. One of the biggest takeaways from this book was that a bunch of big names in colonial America were smugglers! Soooo much smuggling!
On a much lighter note, I love how Slaughter referred to the colonists as “conspiracy theorists” and did not hold back when describing all of the crimes they committed against Great Britain. One of the biggest takeaways from this book was that a bunch of big names in colonial America were smugglers! Soooo much smuggling!
October 5, 2019
This is an excellent account of the thoughts and actions that resulted in the American Revolution. One of the best I ave read. It is clear and shows the political action and misunderstandings on both sides of the Atlantic. What separates this book from the rest is the clear distinction between the idea of independence-as viewed on both sides of the Atlantic - the actual actions of acting on these ideas and misunderstandings that would result in Revolution. Excellent Reading!
August 22, 2014
In his brand new Independence:The Tangled Roots of the American Revolution, Thomas Slaughter clearly demonstrates the truth of his title. In his hindsightful look, this little experiment with a distant colony of its own people was doomed always for England. On the one hand, the inhabitants of what is now the east coast of the USA always thought of themselves as Englishmen with the same rights and privileges as other Englishmen, dating back to the Magna Carta, Habeus Corpus, trial by jury, the ability to tax themselves through their elected representatives. All that. On the other hand, the British generally viewed them as part of a far-flung empire, subject to the same arbitrary rules as other colonists--Indians and Africans, for example--who had no such tradition of representative government or individual rights. Thus, parliament considered it right and reasonable to tax Americans for the money they needed to head out over the Khyber Pass to Afghanistan. And they didn't have to ask or tell how they were using the money.
Perhaps a good early example of this constant misapprehension was the New England colonists' expenditure of blood and treasure to capture Louisburg on Cape Breton Island from the French in the late 17th century. Not only were they not allocated the promised spoils, but the English turned artound and gave the fort and town back to the French as part of a treaty settling the French-American War. A treaty in which, of course, said colonists had no voice.
And so it went down through the years to 1776.
Convincing and interesting as Slaughter's case is, however, I must say the man's prose is as tangled as the roots he describes. David McCulloch takes heat for cutting academic corners to make his work "entertaining" to the masses, but surely there is a middle ground. At one point, for example, Slaughter, is describes how the British are wreaking revenge on coastal communities up and down the Maine and Massachusetts coastlines. Instead of summarizing the situation, he quotes an official British document that names each of about twenty such communities. Not only a speed bump to this reader, but a Bunker Hill or higher. Slaughter does this sort of soporific exercise over and over. His excellent research and theses suffer greatly from his inability to make them accessible.
Too bad because there is much of depth and interest here were it made a bit morre interesting.
Perhaps a good early example of this constant misapprehension was the New England colonists' expenditure of blood and treasure to capture Louisburg on Cape Breton Island from the French in the late 17th century. Not only were they not allocated the promised spoils, but the English turned artound and gave the fort and town back to the French as part of a treaty settling the French-American War. A treaty in which, of course, said colonists had no voice.
And so it went down through the years to 1776.
Convincing and interesting as Slaughter's case is, however, I must say the man's prose is as tangled as the roots he describes. David McCulloch takes heat for cutting academic corners to make his work "entertaining" to the masses, but surely there is a middle ground. At one point, for example, Slaughter, is describes how the British are wreaking revenge on coastal communities up and down the Maine and Massachusetts coastlines. Instead of summarizing the situation, he quotes an official British document that names each of about twenty such communities. Not only a speed bump to this reader, but a Bunker Hill or higher. Slaughter does this sort of soporific exercise over and over. His excellent research and theses suffer greatly from his inability to make them accessible.
Too bad because there is much of depth and interest here were it made a bit morre interesting.
September 6, 2014
This book successfully fleshes out the many faceted situations and myriad conflicts in the hundred and fifty years or so leading to the founding of our nation, connecting them to the events of the Revolutionary War. Quite insightful and thought provoking as the reader moves through the European originated conflicts of the late seventeenth century into the eighteenth century and its affects on the European powers' colonies in the American continent. The book's conclusion highlights the realization that the much desired resolution of conflicts with Lord North's Parliament even into the Second Continental Congress is hopeless for North American Englishman desiring to retain basic British freedoms they felt were inherent in their individual province's founding charters in the previous century. I highly recommend this book to gain a more informed understanding of what the American Revolution was at its beginnings and how it would become the conflict to establish our Independence.
September 30, 2014
Truthfully I couldn't finish the book after the passage about the attacks on the colonists by Indian warriors. In particular, it would be what he indicated had happened to babies and children. It was only a few sentences, but they were awful and I couldn't stop thinking about them even as I tried to skip those pages and pick up again a few pages later. I couldn't get those words out of my head - which may also tell you that this author is very boring and the writing very dry. Either way, I could not finish this book.
June 7, 2015
I was disappointed with this book. I didn't learn anything new and I never really connected with his writing style. To me it was the pretty standard of the colonists not liking the England's interference almost from the very beginning. Neither side figured out what the other wanted and England eventually drove the Americans to rebel. If you're unfamiliar with this time period you may want to read this. I would say you would be better served by reading anything by Gordon Wood, Ferling, or Carol Berkin.
May 5, 2015
Lots of good information but the writing just couldn't hold my attention. I struggled through the first eight chapters and found my self putting this down to read something else. After six weeks of this I am giving up at least temporarily, I may try and come back to it later because this period of history fascinates me. Sorry.
March 9, 2021
An excellent book, very well balanced and unbiased (apart from the last few sentences of the book), always giving ample details of both American and British grievances and perspectives in the 150-170 years leading up 1775. The objectivity of the author, plus the conclusion, earn the title, 'the tangled roots of the American revolution.'
October 13, 2014
A very interesting look at some forgotten or ignored aspects of American history from the time of the Revolution. It seems that there were several largely separate revolutions, some of which could be said to have started before 1776.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews