What do you think?
Rate this book
From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain 1765-76
In this classic account of the American revolution, Pauline Maier traces the step-by-step process through which the extra-legal institutions of the colonial resistance movement assumed authority from the British. She follows the American Whigs as they moved by stages from the organized resistance of the Stamp Act crisis of 1765 through the non-importation associations of the late 1760s to the collapse of royal government after 1773, the implication of the king in a conspiracy against American liberties, and the consequent Declaration of Independence. Professor Maier's great achievement is to explain how Americans came to contemplate and establish their independence, guided by principle, reason, and experience.
370 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1972
33 people are currently reading
679 people want to read
About the author
Pauline Maier
34 books42 followersDr. Pauline Maier was a historian of the American Revolution, though her work also addressed the late colonial period and the history of the United States after the end of the Revolutionary War. She was the William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of American History at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Maier achieved prominence over a fifty-year career of critically acclaimed scholarly histories and journal articles. She was a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and taught undergraduates. She authored textbooks and online courses. Her popular career included series with PBS and the History Channel. She appeared on Charlie Rose, C-SPAN2's In Depth and wrote 20 years for The New York Times review pages. Maier was the 2011 President of the Society of American Historians. She won the 2011 George Washington Book Prize for her book Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. She died in 2013 from lung cancer at the age of 75.
Maier achieved prominence over a fifty-year career of critically acclaimed scholarly histories and journal articles. She was a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and taught undergraduates. She authored textbooks and online courses. Her popular career included series with PBS and the History Channel. She appeared on Charlie Rose, C-SPAN2's In Depth and wrote 20 years for The New York Times review pages. Maier was the 2011 President of the Society of American Historians. She won the 2011 George Washington Book Prize for her book Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. She died in 2013 from lung cancer at the age of 75.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
February 21, 2015
I've not always had a clear grasp of the logic of the American Revolution. How the colonists progressed from a powerful love for King and Country to revolution and a desire for independence never quite fit for me. This book clarified things in an engaging and heavily-evidenced way. I'm glad to have read it.
January 17, 2015
Maier argues that the revolution was a slower process than once believed. The radicals rising up against the British were disorganized, but firmly rooted in English political tradition. Independence was only on the table once the war had destroyed all hope of reconciliation and reform.
Well argued, but structurally this book had issues. It has no conclusion, and her argument is a little difficult to tease out.
Well argued, but structurally this book had issues. It has no conclusion, and her argument is a little difficult to tease out.
March 28, 2016
Maier, Pauline. From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial radicals and the development of
American opposition to Britain, 1765-1776. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1972.
In her work From Resistance to Revolution Pauline Maier analyzes the evolution of colonial sentiment from 1765 to 1776 as it progressed from loyal resistance against specific British policies to revolution and complete rejection of British authority. She argues that a vanguard of radicals lead the revolutionary movement that pushed for a restoration of British liberties as understood by the Whig ideological tradition. Furthermore, she believes that the revolutionary movement began locally but gained more structure as regional leaders recognized the need to contain disorder and discipline opposition through self-rule based on social compacts. The importance of political perspective to her work is reflected by the sources she used. These include the personal correspondence, public statements, and newspapers of radicals as well as the works of British officials and less committed colonists
Maier divides her work into three parts. In the first part, Maier describes “Real Whig” traditions that shaped political norms on the eve of the American Revolution. She agrees with Bernard Baylin’s assessment of the impact of Whig ideology on the mindset of American revolutionaries. She demonstrates that popular uprising were an important political device in Colonial America and were often understood as an indication that the government needed to be reformed. The most common riots protested impressment and enforcement of English laws by customs officials. Real Whigs believed that resistance to government oppression needed to be tempered with restraint to ensure stability. They argued that violence should only be used when all other avenues of redress had been exhausted and only in cases when the public good was not being served by government action. Therefore, the general public served as the best judge of what cases demanded popular resistance.
In the second part of her work, Maier traces the development of resistance to Parliamentary policy in the colonies after 1763. Early resistance to the Stamp Act in 1765 was characterized by violence in Boston. Protestors burned stamp agents in effigy and tore down customs houses to discourage collectors from carrying out their responsibilities. The largely peaceful protests on August 14 were received with wide approval but the crowd’s actions on August 26 were widely rejected due to the destruction of personal property. Agitators decided to temper their rhetoric in the hopes that crowds would show more restraint in the future. A more organized resistance movement to the Stamp Acts did not emerge until after resistance was long underway. The Sons of Liberty hoped to prevent excesses in future demonstrations, which they felt would undermine the protest effort and would be a violation of British principles. They had a strong faith in the British system of government and Monarch and believed that their protests would result in a quick repeal. Repeal celebrations were characterized by toasts to King and by assertions of loyalty to the British monarchy.
A transition from simple resistance to revolution becomes more apparent in the protests against the Townsend Act. Colonists who opposed the act organized nonimportation agreements under the assumption that merchants in Great Britain would push parliament to repeal it. The legality of the nonimportation agreements came into question once specific importers became the target of agitation. The British government was fully embodied in parliament and it was assumed to represent the will of the people. At this point many colonists still assumed that parliament’s actions resulted from purposeful misrepresentations of their loyalty to the ministry. In order for the resistance to grow into revolution, however, the colonists would have to reject the assumption that the parliament was receiving bad advice and begin to believe that it was purposefully attempting to reduce them to a state of subservience.
The third part of the book traces the final evolution of revolution as resistance efforts failed. The Sons of Liberty in the colonies tended to feel a sense of camaraderie with radicals in other parts of the world. Two incidences in particular convinced colonial agitators that the unconstitutional actions of the ministry and parliament could no longer be simply blamed on rumors and false information that was being fed to them by crown agents in the colonies, but was rather part of a plot to subvert liberty and institute tyranny. The inhabitants of Corsica had been struggling against Genoa to maintain independence for several decades by the 1760s. In the interest of maintaining peace and commerce in the Mediterranean, the British government failed to support this independence movement even after the Genoese sold their claim to Corsica to France. The leader of the Corsicans was placed on British pension which confirmed to many Americans that he had been bribed by the Parliament to end resistance against French rule. The second event concerned John Wilkeson, a Member of Parliament who lost his position in Parliament after he led protests against the cider tax. This proved that the ministry was trying to control the legislative process by manipulating the composition of the Parliament, thus establishing absolute rule. Wilkeson was even imprisoned for an article printed in his Newspaper which convinced the colonists that the ministry was even trying to subvert freedom of the press, the basis of a free society.
After the sons of liberty determined that the ministry was attempting to establish tyranny, the colonists put their hopes in the king. They assumed that the king was the victim of bad advice and that he simply needed to be informed of the truth. The petition movement of 1769-70 attempted to inform the king of his subjects’ grievances and was carried out by inhabitants of the colonies and Great Britain. The king’s rejection of these petitions implicated the monarchy itself in the efforts to subvert liberty, and he was accused of trying to establish an absolute monarchy. Colonists gave up the concept of nonviolence and began to argue that they would have to protect their liberty through force. Thus, “once contentious but loyal subjects, by 1773 the American radical leadership was tentatively revolutionary.” (pg. 227)
However, the sons of liberty were still not willing to break away from their mother country and violent rebellion was delayed. Many radicals assumed that eventual change in Parliament or the ministry would resolve their grievances and continued place their hopes in the idea that the king was being misled, but his approval of the Intolerable Acts in 1774 confirmed his complicity. Colonists finally placed all of their hopes in an uprising by the inhabitants of Great Britain to reestablish the system of free government through revolution. Many argued that this was a possibility and even the king hinted at its probability. However, once this proved to be a false hope, the British people themselves became suspect and revolution was inevitable. Americans focused on their readiness for war.
Even as violence became inevitable, American revolutionaries worked hard to temper their actions with restraint. Leaders of the Boston Tea Party were careful to limit the destruction of property to the tea itself and only acted after it seemed impossible to prevent the merchandise from reaching the market in any other way. Special committees were established that to coerce merchants and individual to comply with nonimportation through economic pressure by publishing their names rather than punishing the individual. Revolutionaries never sought reform of the British system but simply wanted to restore it according to their understanding of how it should operate. Once independence was settled upon the Americans determined to create a republic. For the revolutionaries this meant that the individual should sacrifice their selfish needs for the public good and that monarchy must be abandoned. They consciously sought to emulate the British system while removing the part of it that led to corruption, monarchy. Thus, they became republicans by choice.
Pauline Maier is quickly becoming one of my favorite authors. Her work American Scripture is one of the best books that I have ever read. From Resistance to Revolution does a great job of demonstrating that the American Revolution was much more than simply a tax revolt that got out hand. I have no substantive criticisms of this book.
Quotes
Page 29: “Since the Real Whigs were linked most fundamentally but their preoccupation with a liberty that they understood to be synonymous with restraint, they were an unlikely party of disorder. They defined liberty for members of a political society as, briefly, and absolute freedom in all actions that concerned themselves alone.”
Page 163: “Through the failure of radicals abroad the colonists themselves were pushed, clearly if reluctantly, onto the path toward revolution.”
Page 203: “The petition movement of late 1769 and 1770 represented a stage of critical importance. If the petitions failed to win the King’s support, their defeat would strongly suggest that the entire British government, including the monarch, was intent on extending executive power at the cost of the constitution and British liberties.”
American opposition to Britain, 1765-1776. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1972.
In her work From Resistance to Revolution Pauline Maier analyzes the evolution of colonial sentiment from 1765 to 1776 as it progressed from loyal resistance against specific British policies to revolution and complete rejection of British authority. She argues that a vanguard of radicals lead the revolutionary movement that pushed for a restoration of British liberties as understood by the Whig ideological tradition. Furthermore, she believes that the revolutionary movement began locally but gained more structure as regional leaders recognized the need to contain disorder and discipline opposition through self-rule based on social compacts. The importance of political perspective to her work is reflected by the sources she used. These include the personal correspondence, public statements, and newspapers of radicals as well as the works of British officials and less committed colonists
Maier divides her work into three parts. In the first part, Maier describes “Real Whig” traditions that shaped political norms on the eve of the American Revolution. She agrees with Bernard Baylin’s assessment of the impact of Whig ideology on the mindset of American revolutionaries. She demonstrates that popular uprising were an important political device in Colonial America and were often understood as an indication that the government needed to be reformed. The most common riots protested impressment and enforcement of English laws by customs officials. Real Whigs believed that resistance to government oppression needed to be tempered with restraint to ensure stability. They argued that violence should only be used when all other avenues of redress had been exhausted and only in cases when the public good was not being served by government action. Therefore, the general public served as the best judge of what cases demanded popular resistance.
In the second part of her work, Maier traces the development of resistance to Parliamentary policy in the colonies after 1763. Early resistance to the Stamp Act in 1765 was characterized by violence in Boston. Protestors burned stamp agents in effigy and tore down customs houses to discourage collectors from carrying out their responsibilities. The largely peaceful protests on August 14 were received with wide approval but the crowd’s actions on August 26 were widely rejected due to the destruction of personal property. Agitators decided to temper their rhetoric in the hopes that crowds would show more restraint in the future. A more organized resistance movement to the Stamp Acts did not emerge until after resistance was long underway. The Sons of Liberty hoped to prevent excesses in future demonstrations, which they felt would undermine the protest effort and would be a violation of British principles. They had a strong faith in the British system of government and Monarch and believed that their protests would result in a quick repeal. Repeal celebrations were characterized by toasts to King and by assertions of loyalty to the British monarchy.
A transition from simple resistance to revolution becomes more apparent in the protests against the Townsend Act. Colonists who opposed the act organized nonimportation agreements under the assumption that merchants in Great Britain would push parliament to repeal it. The legality of the nonimportation agreements came into question once specific importers became the target of agitation. The British government was fully embodied in parliament and it was assumed to represent the will of the people. At this point many colonists still assumed that parliament’s actions resulted from purposeful misrepresentations of their loyalty to the ministry. In order for the resistance to grow into revolution, however, the colonists would have to reject the assumption that the parliament was receiving bad advice and begin to believe that it was purposefully attempting to reduce them to a state of subservience.
The third part of the book traces the final evolution of revolution as resistance efforts failed. The Sons of Liberty in the colonies tended to feel a sense of camaraderie with radicals in other parts of the world. Two incidences in particular convinced colonial agitators that the unconstitutional actions of the ministry and parliament could no longer be simply blamed on rumors and false information that was being fed to them by crown agents in the colonies, but was rather part of a plot to subvert liberty and institute tyranny. The inhabitants of Corsica had been struggling against Genoa to maintain independence for several decades by the 1760s. In the interest of maintaining peace and commerce in the Mediterranean, the British government failed to support this independence movement even after the Genoese sold their claim to Corsica to France. The leader of the Corsicans was placed on British pension which confirmed to many Americans that he had been bribed by the Parliament to end resistance against French rule. The second event concerned John Wilkeson, a Member of Parliament who lost his position in Parliament after he led protests against the cider tax. This proved that the ministry was trying to control the legislative process by manipulating the composition of the Parliament, thus establishing absolute rule. Wilkeson was even imprisoned for an article printed in his Newspaper which convinced the colonists that the ministry was even trying to subvert freedom of the press, the basis of a free society.
After the sons of liberty determined that the ministry was attempting to establish tyranny, the colonists put their hopes in the king. They assumed that the king was the victim of bad advice and that he simply needed to be informed of the truth. The petition movement of 1769-70 attempted to inform the king of his subjects’ grievances and was carried out by inhabitants of the colonies and Great Britain. The king’s rejection of these petitions implicated the monarchy itself in the efforts to subvert liberty, and he was accused of trying to establish an absolute monarchy. Colonists gave up the concept of nonviolence and began to argue that they would have to protect their liberty through force. Thus, “once contentious but loyal subjects, by 1773 the American radical leadership was tentatively revolutionary.” (pg. 227)
However, the sons of liberty were still not willing to break away from their mother country and violent rebellion was delayed. Many radicals assumed that eventual change in Parliament or the ministry would resolve their grievances and continued place their hopes in the idea that the king was being misled, but his approval of the Intolerable Acts in 1774 confirmed his complicity. Colonists finally placed all of their hopes in an uprising by the inhabitants of Great Britain to reestablish the system of free government through revolution. Many argued that this was a possibility and even the king hinted at its probability. However, once this proved to be a false hope, the British people themselves became suspect and revolution was inevitable. Americans focused on their readiness for war.
Even as violence became inevitable, American revolutionaries worked hard to temper their actions with restraint. Leaders of the Boston Tea Party were careful to limit the destruction of property to the tea itself and only acted after it seemed impossible to prevent the merchandise from reaching the market in any other way. Special committees were established that to coerce merchants and individual to comply with nonimportation through economic pressure by publishing their names rather than punishing the individual. Revolutionaries never sought reform of the British system but simply wanted to restore it according to their understanding of how it should operate. Once independence was settled upon the Americans determined to create a republic. For the revolutionaries this meant that the individual should sacrifice their selfish needs for the public good and that monarchy must be abandoned. They consciously sought to emulate the British system while removing the part of it that led to corruption, monarchy. Thus, they became republicans by choice.
Pauline Maier is quickly becoming one of my favorite authors. Her work American Scripture is one of the best books that I have ever read. From Resistance to Revolution does a great job of demonstrating that the American Revolution was much more than simply a tax revolt that got out hand. I have no substantive criticisms of this book.
Quotes
Page 29: “Since the Real Whigs were linked most fundamentally but their preoccupation with a liberty that they understood to be synonymous with restraint, they were an unlikely party of disorder. They defined liberty for members of a political society as, briefly, and absolute freedom in all actions that concerned themselves alone.”
Page 163: “Through the failure of radicals abroad the colonists themselves were pushed, clearly if reluctantly, onto the path toward revolution.”
Page 203: “The petition movement of late 1769 and 1770 represented a stage of critical importance. If the petitions failed to win the King’s support, their defeat would strongly suggest that the entire British government, including the monarch, was intent on extending executive power at the cost of the constitution and British liberties.”
January 26, 2019
Not a super long read, I read this book in a week for my "American Revolution and Constitution" class. A full 1,000 word review is due in a few days, but in the mean time, suffice to say that this book was very thorough regarding all the different opinions of different men from 1765-1776 concerning the American cause and growth from disgruntled yet patriotic British citizens to their ultimate landing at demanding Independence and a Republic government of their own. Very thoroughly cited if I cared to look up more information. That said, it's not super readable, the language tends to drag on and sentences/paragraphs last forever. When compared to other historical books I'm currently reading, this book falls short in capturing the essence of the information desired in a form that is accessible and enjoyable.
November 2, 2018
In 1765, British colonists considered resistance to be a right which had certain protocols which both sides accepted and practiced. However, by 1776, American colonists considered resistance to be too ineffective and turned to revolution to state their grievances and seek remedies for the wrongs they felt they were enduring. Pauline Maier explains this transition which eventually led to the ultimate war for independence. As a well respected historian of this subject, she uses the republican ideology being formulated by the Whigs to analyze and document this transition in the revolutionary period.
May 23, 2013
Pauline Maier’s 1974 work From Resistance to Revolution became a classic by disputing the then prevalent interpretation of the American Revolution which emphasized the role of radical printers and self-interested American politicians in maneuvering the colonies toward revolution through provocation and propaganda. Growing from her dissertation on the pro-American British opposition MP John Wilkes and the work of her adviser Bernard Bailyn, Maier placed the Revolution within the context of the wider imperial political world. By minimizing the role of “personality, interest and origin” she sidestepped the previous historiographical trend and elevated to more serious consideration of the ideas found in letters and publications from the period. She contended that these fit with the Real Whig ideology of British politics and expressed a set of “political conclusions and strategy that individuals shared in a common trajectory toward revolution and independence.” Her account of the revolution was therefore liberated from the particulars of various colonial interests and placed on abstract ideas about the relationship between authority and consent within a wider British political world.
By emphasizing the continuities of ideology between the republican strains within British politics and American revolutionary ideology, Maier created a now familiar concept of the Revolution as a consummately conservative affair which sought to preserve traditional rights and liberties against the inroads of an increasingly autocratic King and Parliament in London. Restraint and orderly disorder dominate her account of the building colonial resistance to British rule. Political pressure by commoners, expressed by physical intimidation and violence against property, is situated within a British political tradition of mob action so unriotously selective about time and target that it is as habitual as it is tame. The traditions of local government are likewise prudent, relying on the local leadership of gentry and volunteers, conscious of the inability to suppress large scale disorder and the consequent need for careful, judicious policy. The organizers of colonial resistance to the Stamp and Townshend Acts are ever mindful to keep the lid firmly on any outbreaks of violent resistance, opting for the more passive tactics of non-importation in accordance with the necessity of preserving Whig ideals of order, which reasoned that the resistance to tyranny had to be carefully balanced against the evils of civil war and anarchy.
For Maier, ideology is the foundation of American resistance on two levels. First, it united the northern and southern colonies with a common political worldview before they were united through any organizational bonds. Second, the discipline necessary for carefully ordered resistance against Parliamentary Acts was the stimulus for the creation of the first institutions of united colonial government.
Maier situates the decision to rebel within the context of the threatening implications a series of defeated liberty movements across the British Empire in the 1770s, including John Wilkes’ imprisonment and the stymied democratic reform program of the Society for the Supporters of the Bill of Rights. As the republican cause lost ground to a hostile King and Parliament across the Atlantic World the colonies were forced to rebellion to preserve their collective political ideals and traditions.
By emphasizing the continuities of ideology between the republican strains within British politics and American revolutionary ideology, Maier created a now familiar concept of the Revolution as a consummately conservative affair which sought to preserve traditional rights and liberties against the inroads of an increasingly autocratic King and Parliament in London. Restraint and orderly disorder dominate her account of the building colonial resistance to British rule. Political pressure by commoners, expressed by physical intimidation and violence against property, is situated within a British political tradition of mob action so unriotously selective about time and target that it is as habitual as it is tame. The traditions of local government are likewise prudent, relying on the local leadership of gentry and volunteers, conscious of the inability to suppress large scale disorder and the consequent need for careful, judicious policy. The organizers of colonial resistance to the Stamp and Townshend Acts are ever mindful to keep the lid firmly on any outbreaks of violent resistance, opting for the more passive tactics of non-importation in accordance with the necessity of preserving Whig ideals of order, which reasoned that the resistance to tyranny had to be carefully balanced against the evils of civil war and anarchy.
For Maier, ideology is the foundation of American resistance on two levels. First, it united the northern and southern colonies with a common political worldview before they were united through any organizational bonds. Second, the discipline necessary for carefully ordered resistance against Parliamentary Acts was the stimulus for the creation of the first institutions of united colonial government.
Maier situates the decision to rebel within the context of the threatening implications a series of defeated liberty movements across the British Empire in the 1770s, including John Wilkes’ imprisonment and the stymied democratic reform program of the Society for the Supporters of the Bill of Rights. As the republican cause lost ground to a hostile King and Parliament across the Atlantic World the colonies were forced to rebellion to preserve their collective political ideals and traditions.
August 31, 2014
A. Introduction
1. When the Sons of Liberty organized against the Stamp Act in 1765 separation was shunned and independence was rarely mentioned
2. The main question for this book is why and when did the colonists shape their views of the mother country
3. To understand the revolutionary movement this book concentrates upon the men directly opposed to Britain--the radicals (they were informal, unorganized, and led the resistance)
4. Sources: personal letters, public statements, and the newspapers that the radicals published and supported. Some British correspondence and less committed Americans.
5. This book is a study in political perception--How did these radicals perceive the politics of the world)
a) The mentality of the colonists and how that affected ideology (Whig Ideology)
b) Thesis: The revolutionary movement can only be understood against a background of English revolutionary tradition
B. Traditions
1. Popular uprisings and civil authority
a) The 18th century Americans accepted that uprisings were a part of life
b) As early as 1743 there was violent colonial opposition to impressement and customs enforcement
c) These uprisings showed many characteristics with England (the way the rioters acted, causes of the incidents).
d) The persistence of these uprisings can also be explained by Anglo-American law enforcement practices. There was no police force. Only “hue and cry” by which the community itself rose to stop violations
2. The ideology of resistance and restraint
a) The colonists attitudes stemmed from such English writers as John Milton and John Locke (The peoples right to rise up against the rulers)
b) This “real Whig” tradition provided a corpus of ideas for the American revolutionary movement
c) Government was created by the people. If the magistrates failed to honor that trust the people could rise up in limited acts of resistance or in revolution to end the legitimacy of rule (Ideology)
d) Yet, these radicals were committed to restraint and upholding the law.
e) Therefore, Whiggism tempered the use of violence. This need to reconcile resistance and restraint became one of the central intellectual and practical problems of the revolution
C. Resistance
1. The Stamp Act riots and ordered resistance (1765)
a) The Stamp Act was initially met with silent resistance
b) Eventually the Americans resisted and the act was nullified
c) Almost immediately radicals avoided ad hoc violence in favor of an ordered opposition
d) This discussion of the guidelines of resistance shaped all subsequent colonial opposition to the Revolutionary war
2. Sons of Liberty and organized resistance
a) The SOL formed in an effort to limit forceful resistance
b) They sought only to nullify the stamp act
c) When that was achieved they disbanded
3. Resistance in transition (1767-1770)
a) Colonial opposition returned over the Townshend Acts in 1767
b) The radicals believed that resistance must include the body of the people, must strive to be peaceful rather than violent (this was the model set by the sons of liberty)
c) But the main transition here was the failed belief in the ability of British rule
d) The radical movement was becoming revolutionary
e) The belief was that Britain was forcing America to independence
1. When the Sons of Liberty organized against the Stamp Act in 1765 separation was shunned and independence was rarely mentioned
2. The main question for this book is why and when did the colonists shape their views of the mother country
3. To understand the revolutionary movement this book concentrates upon the men directly opposed to Britain--the radicals (they were informal, unorganized, and led the resistance)
4. Sources: personal letters, public statements, and the newspapers that the radicals published and supported. Some British correspondence and less committed Americans.
5. This book is a study in political perception--How did these radicals perceive the politics of the world)
a) The mentality of the colonists and how that affected ideology (Whig Ideology)
b) Thesis: The revolutionary movement can only be understood against a background of English revolutionary tradition
B. Traditions
1. Popular uprisings and civil authority
a) The 18th century Americans accepted that uprisings were a part of life
b) As early as 1743 there was violent colonial opposition to impressement and customs enforcement
c) These uprisings showed many characteristics with England (the way the rioters acted, causes of the incidents).
d) The persistence of these uprisings can also be explained by Anglo-American law enforcement practices. There was no police force. Only “hue and cry” by which the community itself rose to stop violations
2. The ideology of resistance and restraint
a) The colonists attitudes stemmed from such English writers as John Milton and John Locke (The peoples right to rise up against the rulers)
b) This “real Whig” tradition provided a corpus of ideas for the American revolutionary movement
c) Government was created by the people. If the magistrates failed to honor that trust the people could rise up in limited acts of resistance or in revolution to end the legitimacy of rule (Ideology)
d) Yet, these radicals were committed to restraint and upholding the law.
e) Therefore, Whiggism tempered the use of violence. This need to reconcile resistance and restraint became one of the central intellectual and practical problems of the revolution
C. Resistance
1. The Stamp Act riots and ordered resistance (1765)
a) The Stamp Act was initially met with silent resistance
b) Eventually the Americans resisted and the act was nullified
c) Almost immediately radicals avoided ad hoc violence in favor of an ordered opposition
d) This discussion of the guidelines of resistance shaped all subsequent colonial opposition to the Revolutionary war
2. Sons of Liberty and organized resistance
a) The SOL formed in an effort to limit forceful resistance
b) They sought only to nullify the stamp act
c) When that was achieved they disbanded
3. Resistance in transition (1767-1770)
a) Colonial opposition returned over the Townshend Acts in 1767
b) The radicals believed that resistance must include the body of the people, must strive to be peaceful rather than violent (this was the model set by the sons of liberty)
c) But the main transition here was the failed belief in the ability of British rule
d) The radical movement was becoming revolutionary
e) The belief was that Britain was forcing America to independence
May 5, 2017
The first couple of chapters make this book worth reading and purchasing. I'm amazed it is not talked about more in "conservative" circles. It presents a society that had far less differentiation between police power and the rest of society. In English and Colonial society, police power was a duty of everyone, so that, when a civil magistrate failed to do what was lawful, and the "mob" did it anyway, the line between "riot" and "lawful government" was not so easy to detect. John Locke and Algernon Sydney and other "theorists" were typically describing and explaining real life as they knew it. Resistance was customary. The "bad guy" is Blackstone who spread the idea that only Parliament was the way a society could govern "itself." Parliamentary democracy is revealed as a usurpation of self-government.
September 18, 2012
The strongest parts of Maier's work involve as the title would suggest, the path the colonists followed from "passive" resistance to armed revolution. Overly reliant on the same sources utilized by Bernard Bailyn (her academic advisor on her dissertation) and too often supporting his research rather than adding something new of her own,the good still overcomes the bad. (and bonus points for not being as dry as many dissertations turned into full length books usually are)
May 4, 2014
Maier constructs a framework for colonial resistance prior to the Revolution that is more accurate than anything I have read in previous books. The Sons of Liberty were organized, legal, and acted within acceptable limits established by over a century of organized resistance. This is a necessary read for any serious student of Colonial America and the American Revolution. Easily a five star history!
September 3, 2012
The first part is an illuminating discussion of the role of mobs in pre-1765 America and England. The book lost me after that. The prose is dry and the arguments are unoriginal. Maier would have done better to either concentrate upon mob activities or upon America's disillusionment with Britain, because her prose utterly fails to connect the two.
December 25, 2011
Interesting exploration of how American colonists transitioned from thinking of themselves as loyal subjects of Britain with a few grievances about the laws of the colonies to people willing to fight for independence. Very accessible to the reader with some awareness of the revolutionary period.
February 27, 2008
Pretty decent and thorough account of the escalating radicalization of the colonists before the Revolutionary War.
July 18, 2024
Brilliant and essential look at the transformation of colonial attitudes to British rule from 1765 to 1776.
February 7, 2025
Somewhat weedy, a few tangential global arguments, and I still finished it in a couple days because, yeah, it was good. I'm bittersweet on the thesis, and the Stamp Act was more consequential than Maier gives it credit for, but hey, now I know more than any one person should know about the contents of colonial opposition letters and newspapers. Slowing down the development of the revolution is no easy task, and the author succeeded in that endeavor. Curl up with some good ol' Darjeeling, like 18th century Lords with stakes in the British East India Company would have, and bask in the pleasure of this AmRev history geek read!
January 12, 2024
A wonderful step-by-step account of America's history that led to the revolution. Accurate and well written. Great for teaching children history. and for understanding more than just the facts.
June 23, 2016
The text covers the time period between the end of the French and Indian War and the start of the Revolutionary War. The colonists gave no thought to independence at the end of the F & I War. Since the war left England heavily in debt, King George III became determined to have the colonists help pay for it. When the Stamp Act was passed in 1765 to raise revenue, the colonists became enraged. Events then slowly spiraled out of control over the next 11 years until revolution became inevitable. This book examines these events in great detail, sometimes in too great detail. The book is so heavily footnoted in places that its readability suffers. However, the end result was well worth the undertaking.
March 28, 2012
Awesome resource.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews