What do you think?
Rate this book
1774: The Long Year of Revolution
From one of our most acclaimed and original colonial historians, a groundbreaking book tracing the critical "long year" of 1774 and the revolutionary change that took place from the Boston Tea Party and the First Continental Congress to the Battles of Lexington and Concord.
A WALL STREET JOURNAL BEST BOOK OF THE YEAR
In this masterly work of history, the culmination of more than four decades of research and thought, Mary Beth Norton looks at the sixteen months leading up to the clashes at Lexington and Concord in mid-April 1775. This was the critical, and often overlooked, period when colonists traditionally loyal to King George III began their discordant “discussions” that led them to their acceptance of the inevitability of war against the British Empire. Drawing extensively on pamphlets, newspapers, and personal correspondence, Norton reconstructs colonial political discourse as it took place throughout 1774. Late in the year, conservatives mounted a vigorous campaign criticizing the First Continental Congress. But by then it was too late. In early 1775, colonial governors informed officials in London that they were unable to thwart the increasing power of local committees and their allied provincial congresses. Although the Declaration of Independence would not be formally adopted until July 1776, Americans had in effect “declared independence ” even before the outbreak of war in April 1775 by obeying the decrees of the provincial governments they had elected rather than colonial officials appointed by the king. Norton captures the tension and drama of this pivotal year and foundational moment in American history and brings it to life as no other historian has done before.
A WALL STREET JOURNAL BEST BOOK OF THE YEAR
In this masterly work of history, the culmination of more than four decades of research and thought, Mary Beth Norton looks at the sixteen months leading up to the clashes at Lexington and Concord in mid-April 1775. This was the critical, and often overlooked, period when colonists traditionally loyal to King George III began their discordant “discussions” that led them to their acceptance of the inevitability of war against the British Empire. Drawing extensively on pamphlets, newspapers, and personal correspondence, Norton reconstructs colonial political discourse as it took place throughout 1774. Late in the year, conservatives mounted a vigorous campaign criticizing the First Continental Congress. But by then it was too late. In early 1775, colonial governors informed officials in London that they were unable to thwart the increasing power of local committees and their allied provincial congresses. Although the Declaration of Independence would not be formally adopted until July 1776, Americans had in effect “declared independence ” even before the outbreak of war in April 1775 by obeying the decrees of the provincial governments they had elected rather than colonial officials appointed by the king. Norton captures the tension and drama of this pivotal year and foundational moment in American history and brings it to life as no other historian has done before.
344 pages, Paperback
First published February 11, 2020
247 people are currently reading
1589 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 - 30 of 78 reviews
July 21, 2025
Having previously written numerous studies on the history of women in the eighteenth century and the Salem witch trials, renowned historian Mary Beth Norton returns to the Colonial period. Her latest spans over sixteen months from December 1773 to mid-April 1775, a long reactionary period of dissent and rebellion in which she suggests from the outset that not all colonists were on board with the revolutionary events taking place. In an introduction that touches on the events prior to “the long 1774,” Norton presents three distinct factions that were beginning to form between Whig-leaning colonists and Tories alike (supporters of resistance, conservatives, and moderates), and notes that each group will be featured prominently throughout the text.
Norton dives into the first chapter by first addressing the practice of smuggling tea into the Thirteen Colonies, not only touching on the unpopular Townshend Acts, but breaking down the later Tea Act of 1773. She notes that the East India Company’s unpopularity wasn’t only focused to Boston alone, but spanned across the colonies—quoting Benjamin Rush, Thomas Mifflin, and Pennsylvania’s John Dickinson for a fascinating view of the differences in opinion on the matter and their respective approaches on opposition. After describing the events of the Boston Tea Party, Norton looks further into the other oft-overlooked ships carrying tea to the colonies. Here she gives a fascinating account of the wreck of the William in Capecod—which had surprisingly less controversy and outcry from the colonists due to the shipowner’s eventual compliance—and answers many interesting questions when viewed from a social experiment/hypothetical mindset and study.
Norton appropriately chooses to look at this period from a transatlantic perspective, dedicating substantial portions of chapters on Parliament’s responses to the various protests, including the debate and confirmation of the Boston Port Act. The colonies struggle to back one another and collaborate for an appropriate response to Massachusetts’ new economic plight, and Norton shows how hesitant South Carolina, Connecticut, and others were in agreeing and conforming with a non-consumption covenant towards their mother country. 1774 is undoubtedly academic in its approach, and while the experience can at times become rather dull with the dry facts and loads of information being presented, Norton’s commitment to her research is beyond astounding—pulling extensively from primary sources and all the while summarizing each letter, bill, entry, etc., for the modern audience:
Employing the word “manly”to describe the manner in which New Englanders should oppose British measures echoed similar language then being used elsewhere in the colonies. Americans came to utilize “manly”to mean opposition behavior that was steadfast and determined yet never disorderly or uncontrolled. So Eunice Paine told her brother, Robert, in mid-September that Bristol County men had “annihilated”a recent court session with “no rioting, no Licentiousness,”but rather with “a manly resolution.”Ironically, such locutions excluded her and other women from those who were viewed as struggling against Britain, a far different circumstance from what had been true when the earlier opposition centered on tea.
The reader is helpfully guided along by the numerous amount of subchapters included throughout the pages—an essential addition when considering the vast amount of facts and topics being covered in each monumental chapter. This includes the previously mentioned 'Advices from London' sections, in which further on we find the English debating the legality of the First Continental Congress, voicing their concerns of suspicious shipments of powder and arms bound for North America, and scrutinizing the purpose of Josiah Quincy’s overseas visit on behalf of the Thirteen Colonies. Interestingly, Norton points out that it’s in the year 1774 where the term “American Loyalist” comes into play, and she addresses the various factions and committees that sprung up in opposition to the anti-monarchy movements that were rapidly gaining momentum—as well as the dire consequences that came with being labeled a Tory.
The final chapter covers the opening months of 1775, noting George III’s unwillingness to come to any terms or compromises with his subjects across the pond, further actions taken against smuggling and illegal trade, and Joseph Galloway’s fruitless efforts to convince his countrymen to renege on their grievances. As the book comes to a close with hints of an inevitable civil war following the aftermath of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, it’s all too evident that this will stand as Norton’s magnum opus—a timeless chronicle of the “long year” preceding the American Revolution. Over twenty different illustrations are included, as well as a useful index.
Norton dives into the first chapter by first addressing the practice of smuggling tea into the Thirteen Colonies, not only touching on the unpopular Townshend Acts, but breaking down the later Tea Act of 1773. She notes that the East India Company’s unpopularity wasn’t only focused to Boston alone, but spanned across the colonies—quoting Benjamin Rush, Thomas Mifflin, and Pennsylvania’s John Dickinson for a fascinating view of the differences in opinion on the matter and their respective approaches on opposition. After describing the events of the Boston Tea Party, Norton looks further into the other oft-overlooked ships carrying tea to the colonies. Here she gives a fascinating account of the wreck of the William in Capecod—which had surprisingly less controversy and outcry from the colonists due to the shipowner’s eventual compliance—and answers many interesting questions when viewed from a social experiment/hypothetical mindset and study.
Norton appropriately chooses to look at this period from a transatlantic perspective, dedicating substantial portions of chapters on Parliament’s responses to the various protests, including the debate and confirmation of the Boston Port Act. The colonies struggle to back one another and collaborate for an appropriate response to Massachusetts’ new economic plight, and Norton shows how hesitant South Carolina, Connecticut, and others were in agreeing and conforming with a non-consumption covenant towards their mother country. 1774 is undoubtedly academic in its approach, and while the experience can at times become rather dull with the dry facts and loads of information being presented, Norton’s commitment to her research is beyond astounding—pulling extensively from primary sources and all the while summarizing each letter, bill, entry, etc., for the modern audience:
Employing the word “manly”to describe the manner in which New Englanders should oppose British measures echoed similar language then being used elsewhere in the colonies. Americans came to utilize “manly”to mean opposition behavior that was steadfast and determined yet never disorderly or uncontrolled. So Eunice Paine told her brother, Robert, in mid-September that Bristol County men had “annihilated”a recent court session with “no rioting, no Licentiousness,”but rather with “a manly resolution.”Ironically, such locutions excluded her and other women from those who were viewed as struggling against Britain, a far different circumstance from what had been true when the earlier opposition centered on tea.
The reader is helpfully guided along by the numerous amount of subchapters included throughout the pages—an essential addition when considering the vast amount of facts and topics being covered in each monumental chapter. This includes the previously mentioned 'Advices from London' sections, in which further on we find the English debating the legality of the First Continental Congress, voicing their concerns of suspicious shipments of powder and arms bound for North America, and scrutinizing the purpose of Josiah Quincy’s overseas visit on behalf of the Thirteen Colonies. Interestingly, Norton points out that it’s in the year 1774 where the term “American Loyalist” comes into play, and she addresses the various factions and committees that sprung up in opposition to the anti-monarchy movements that were rapidly gaining momentum—as well as the dire consequences that came with being labeled a Tory.
The final chapter covers the opening months of 1775, noting George III’s unwillingness to come to any terms or compromises with his subjects across the pond, further actions taken against smuggling and illegal trade, and Joseph Galloway’s fruitless efforts to convince his countrymen to renege on their grievances. As the book comes to a close with hints of an inevitable civil war following the aftermath of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, it’s all too evident that this will stand as Norton’s magnum opus—a timeless chronicle of the “long year” preceding the American Revolution. Over twenty different illustrations are included, as well as a useful index.
February 11, 2020
Readers interested in the details behind the larger picture of the American Revolution will thoroughly enjoy reading Mary Beth Norton's new book, 1774: The Long Year of Revolution. Drawing extensively from letters, diaries, pamphlets and newspapers, Norton explores the true mindset of Colonial America during 1774. Did the majority of people remain loyal to king and country? Did most people think alternatives would bring England and America back into harmony?
1774 offers some fascinating insights into incidents like the 'Boston Tea Party' and the reaction other colonies had to the Bostonians' radical destruction of property. Tea became such a flashpoint politically that whether one drank tea or not said a great deal about their politics. Yet men rarely included women as economic decision makers in debates behind things like whether to boycott tea. What did women think about the boycott- and the patently false health claims made against drinking tea that were written to convince women to give it up voluntarily? Mob rule and 'patriotic terrorism' were as debated then as they are now, and many of the points brought up against mob decisions could still apply today. Free speech and free press versus an open press are flashpoint of contention, and then as now we see papers shift from showing both sides of an issue to focusing on only the side that paper supports.
Although occasionally a little longer than necessary, the writing was good and the research is thorough. History lovers and teachers alike will be interested in the examples of daily life and political thought as it developed over the 'long year' leading up to the shots heard round the world and the war that changed everything.
I received an ARC of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
1774 offers some fascinating insights into incidents like the 'Boston Tea Party' and the reaction other colonies had to the Bostonians' radical destruction of property. Tea became such a flashpoint politically that whether one drank tea or not said a great deal about their politics. Yet men rarely included women as economic decision makers in debates behind things like whether to boycott tea. What did women think about the boycott- and the patently false health claims made against drinking tea that were written to convince women to give it up voluntarily? Mob rule and 'patriotic terrorism' were as debated then as they are now, and many of the points brought up against mob decisions could still apply today. Free speech and free press versus an open press are flashpoint of contention, and then as now we see papers shift from showing both sides of an issue to focusing on only the side that paper supports.
Although occasionally a little longer than necessary, the writing was good and the research is thorough. History lovers and teachers alike will be interested in the examples of daily life and political thought as it developed over the 'long year' leading up to the shots heard round the world and the war that changed everything.
I received an ARC of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
March 14, 2025
Before 1774, most politically aware Americans were united in criticizing policies about colonial taxation and governance that Parliament adopted after the end of the Seven Years’ War in 1763. Conservatives and radicals debated methods of resistance, but well into the 1770s free colonists uniformly identified themselves as loyal subjects of King George III and gloried in their membership in the British Empire.
Excellent history. Exhaustive study of the collation of American public opinion to favor independence. Thorough investigation of all points of view, including doubters and dissenters. Worthy of attention to anyone trying to understand what went wrong, when, and who led and opposed.
That the nature of the debate had changed was shown by the fact that the poem, ostensibly by a woman, never mentioned that quintessentially feminine topic, tea, or the tea duty. Rather than Americans’ earlier focus on measures adopted by Parliament, their attention had now shifted to congressional actions and their implications, for good or ill.
Between the December 1773 dumping of tea into Boston harbor and April 1775 combat at Lexington, Americans divided sharply on resisting from England. Norton details the stiffening of opinion and actions taken to avoid as well as prepare for armed conflict. A key instruction from Lord Dartmouth, the Secretary of State for the Americas, to Thomas Gage, Commander of British forces in Boston, pinpoints the spark that ignitied the war.
“The only consideration that remains is in what manner the force under your command may be exerted to defend the constitution and to restore the vigour of government.” [Lord Dartmouth]
Well-presented. No footnotes, but exhaustive background follows text. Heavily reliant on published words (and the increasing difficulty one side getting its opinions published), but letters and journals of the famous and obscure add depth.
“This Country will be deluged with Blood before it will submit to any other Taxation than by their own Assemblies.”
Excellent history. Exhaustive study of the collation of American public opinion to favor independence. Thorough investigation of all points of view, including doubters and dissenters. Worthy of attention to anyone trying to understand what went wrong, when, and who led and opposed.
That the nature of the debate had changed was shown by the fact that the poem, ostensibly by a woman, never mentioned that quintessentially feminine topic, tea, or the tea duty. Rather than Americans’ earlier focus on measures adopted by Parliament, their attention had now shifted to congressional actions and their implications, for good or ill.
Between the December 1773 dumping of tea into Boston harbor and April 1775 combat at Lexington, Americans divided sharply on resisting from England. Norton details the stiffening of opinion and actions taken to avoid as well as prepare for armed conflict. A key instruction from Lord Dartmouth, the Secretary of State for the Americas, to Thomas Gage, Commander of British forces in Boston, pinpoints the spark that ignitied the war.
“The only consideration that remains is in what manner the force under your command may be exerted to defend the constitution and to restore the vigour of government.” [Lord Dartmouth]
Well-presented. No footnotes, but exhaustive background follows text. Heavily reliant on published words (and the increasing difficulty one side getting its opinions published), but letters and journals of the famous and obscure add depth.
“This Country will be deluged with Blood before it will submit to any other Taxation than by their own Assemblies.”
August 5, 2024
Very long and really hard to get through. The first 200 plus pages are about The Tea Tax and tea. I’ll admit very important to the progression to the revolution, but repetitive and mundane. Huge history buff and usually engaged in previous book, but this felt like homework. There are some good and different perspectives that are not found in other books from this time period. Just not enough to save this book in my eyes.
January 23, 2025
This is a detailed look at changes in the Colonies during the months from the Boston Tea party in Dec. 1773 to the fighting at Lexington and Concord in April 1775. (The detail is supported by 123 pages of notes, and extensive bibliography and a helpful index.) But more than just tracing events, it thoroughly develops the attitudes of colonists along with their reactions to events, information and misinformation as demonstrated through correspondence and publications. The difficulties of communication are clear, differences of opinions are everywhere, and I often felt the frustrations of everyone involved. One report of a meeting called it full of "incoherent stupid" arguments. lol
At times the amount of detail overwhelmed me, but annotating my copy helped, and there were a lot of interesting points. For instance, the author calls out changes in word usage and how they reflect changes in perception of the colonists themselves. Women's opinions and actions are included as much as possible with current knowledge, and a great deal of time is spent on Loyalist thought, not just the Rebels. I also appreciated the "Advices From..." sections at the end of most chapters which summarized speeches, votes, letters, etc. from other countries.
This isn't a book for the very casual reader and certainly I wouldn't recommend it for an introduction into the times. But if you're interested in diving deeper into how colonial attitudes changed so rapidly and would like insight into what it must have actually felt like to live through this year, this is a great place to look. Just be prepared to deal with lots of details.
At times the amount of detail overwhelmed me, but annotating my copy helped, and there were a lot of interesting points. For instance, the author calls out changes in word usage and how they reflect changes in perception of the colonists themselves. Women's opinions and actions are included as much as possible with current knowledge, and a great deal of time is spent on Loyalist thought, not just the Rebels. I also appreciated the "Advices From..." sections at the end of most chapters which summarized speeches, votes, letters, etc. from other countries.
This isn't a book for the very casual reader and certainly I wouldn't recommend it for an introduction into the times. But if you're interested in diving deeper into how colonial attitudes changed so rapidly and would like insight into what it must have actually felt like to live through this year, this is a great place to look. Just be prepared to deal with lots of details.
November 11, 2021
This book focuses on the "long" 1774, from the Boston Tea Party in December 1773 through to the eve of Lexington and Concord in April 1775. Norton's main premise is that 1774 was the critical year, the year when the colonists thought of themselves as Americans and acted independently. This is the year that the king and parliament decided that the colonists had crossed the line from protest to rebellion. Norton liberally quotes pamphlets from the time to capture the thoughts and sentiments of Americans and British during this crucial year. She foregrounds the role of women. Because tea was a "domestic" item, it was acceptable for women to participate in the political debate. I found this a valuable book to increasing my knowledge and understanding of the American Revolution.
February 10, 2020
Mary Beth Norton provides the best thorough explanations of some of the most famous moments in American history. My full review: https://medium.com/park-recommendatio...
January 6, 2021
The premise of the author is that you cannot understand the American revolution without having a better idea of the opponents. She chooses the crucial months before 1774 and and then a few months into 1775 as a key period. (Lexington and Concord were in April 1775). That is a pretty good lens.
While I think the the book offers some interesting background on the Intolerable Acts and the controversy about tea, I am not sure that there is much new here. Any political movement has a progression from formation to success. Norton makes a pretty good case that the key British officials in London and in the US were almost uniquely incapable of understanding the depth of anger in the colonials in response to being asked to pay for the costs of the French and Indian War or even in formulating a way to respond to that anger.
There is one other problem with the book. It focuses on the response in places like Charleston, Philadelphia and New York to the 3 penny tax on tea. I got some extra information about how various parts of the colonies dealt with the Intolerable Acts. And as you would not be surprised - the various cities responded slightly differently and opinion was not unified in any place - the Tories had supporters to the end. But as someone who has spent a lot of time reading about the period leading to our founding I think Norton does not properly set the context for how early opponents got converted to revolutionaries over a relatively short period of time.
While I think the the book offers some interesting background on the Intolerable Acts and the controversy about tea, I am not sure that there is much new here. Any political movement has a progression from formation to success. Norton makes a pretty good case that the key British officials in London and in the US were almost uniquely incapable of understanding the depth of anger in the colonials in response to being asked to pay for the costs of the French and Indian War or even in formulating a way to respond to that anger.
There is one other problem with the book. It focuses on the response in places like Charleston, Philadelphia and New York to the 3 penny tax on tea. I got some extra information about how various parts of the colonies dealt with the Intolerable Acts. And as you would not be surprised - the various cities responded slightly differently and opinion was not unified in any place - the Tories had supporters to the end. But as someone who has spent a lot of time reading about the period leading to our founding I think Norton does not properly set the context for how early opponents got converted to revolutionaries over a relatively short period of time.
March 3, 2020
1774 is a great book. Although the "single-year" concept for a history book is nothing new, Norton makes a compelling case that the events of 1774 were what drove American colonists from wanting reconciliation with Great Britain to wanting outright indepedence from them. The book reads like a play-by-play how two major moments (The Boston Tea Party and the First Continental Congress) eventually led to the conflict at Lexington and Concord.
Norton spends a lot of time discussing conflicting opinions of colonists throughout 1774 in order to show the diversity of political thought. Today, many Americans hold the Boston Tea Party in high esteem, but that wasn't the case back then. Right after it happened, people like Washington and Franklin thought that the Tea Party was shocking and wrong; many colonists wanted Boston to pay back the East India Company.
There is also a lot of discussion of the "legality" or "extra-legal" methods of the colonial resistance, and the clear hypocrisy in statements made by resistance members. For example, the colonists were forced to create illegal assemblies (The First Continental Congress) in order to assert what they believed were their Constitutional Rights as people of the British empire. Loyalists used these assemblies as "proof" that the resistance members were outlaws. These discussions were fascinating, especially as they pertained to "mob justice," or "patriotic terror," (ie. the tar and feathering, setting ships on fire, etc.) because many resistance members and Loyalists were horrified by these actions, which were often seen as an affront to the rule of law.
My favorite part of the book, though, is that Norton let the sources speak for themselves. For all of the crucial events discussed, Norton presents the reader with a diversity of opinions from colonists and Britons, letting the sources speak for themselves. Norton obviously historicizes the arguments and everything, but her decision to curate a massive amount of quotes instead of summarizing everything gives the reader a birds-eye view of the historical atmosphere. By allowing her sources to speak for themselves, she brings the reader into history, which can only be accomplished by a master historian.
Norton spends a lot of time discussing conflicting opinions of colonists throughout 1774 in order to show the diversity of political thought. Today, many Americans hold the Boston Tea Party in high esteem, but that wasn't the case back then. Right after it happened, people like Washington and Franklin thought that the Tea Party was shocking and wrong; many colonists wanted Boston to pay back the East India Company.
There is also a lot of discussion of the "legality" or "extra-legal" methods of the colonial resistance, and the clear hypocrisy in statements made by resistance members. For example, the colonists were forced to create illegal assemblies (The First Continental Congress) in order to assert what they believed were their Constitutional Rights as people of the British empire. Loyalists used these assemblies as "proof" that the resistance members were outlaws. These discussions were fascinating, especially as they pertained to "mob justice," or "patriotic terror," (ie. the tar and feathering, setting ships on fire, etc.) because many resistance members and Loyalists were horrified by these actions, which were often seen as an affront to the rule of law.
My favorite part of the book, though, is that Norton let the sources speak for themselves. For all of the crucial events discussed, Norton presents the reader with a diversity of opinions from colonists and Britons, letting the sources speak for themselves. Norton obviously historicizes the arguments and everything, but her decision to curate a massive amount of quotes instead of summarizing everything gives the reader a birds-eye view of the historical atmosphere. By allowing her sources to speak for themselves, she brings the reader into history, which can only be accomplished by a master historian.
November 3, 2023
This was okay. I liked it, I learned a little bit, but it was pretty dry. And I think the title is a bit misleading given the content of the book, it should really be "1774: Lets talk about tea". The whole book was really a deep analysis of tea and its relationship to the revolution. Which, to be fair, was interesting, it is just not really what I expected the book to be about. However, I think the analysis of the topic was very strong. This took an interesting lens because, while women are hard to do history on, this was a "woman's commodity" so analysis of tea did allow for an analysis of how women were existing during the revolution.
The downside of this book is that it definitely dragged on in places and it was hard to stay engaged. But, it was overall interesting and good. I liked it, though this did require a presupposed knowledge of the events of 1774. It was not really an introduction to the topic, but more a continuation of the conversation around the American Revolution.
The downside of this book is that it definitely dragged on in places and it was hard to stay engaged. But, it was overall interesting and good. I liked it, though this did require a presupposed knowledge of the events of 1774. It was not really an introduction to the topic, but more a continuation of the conversation around the American Revolution.
December 7, 2025
What Morton has actually done here is locate the moments when people simply stopped pretending. Not the moment of grand declaration or battlefield heroics, but that murky period between December 1773 and April 1775 when Americans just began acting as if royal authority didn’t exist. And once you start doing that, it turns out, it’s very hard to go back to pretending it does.
The conventional story treats revolution as this dramatic rupture of tea in the harbor, muskets at Lexington, suddenly we’re at war.
But Morton shows us something more interesting and more terrifying to established power: the quiet multiplication of parallel institutions, shadow governments forming like frost crystals, each one a small act of collective imagination that said “we can simply organize ourselves.” By the time the shooting started, the revolution had already happened. The British just hadn’t noticed they were already ruling over a polite fiction.
What makes this scholarship valuable isn’t just the primary source work, but that Morton is willing to take seriously the proposition that history isn’t made in the moments we’re told to look at. It’s made in the hundreds of small committee meetings and town hall arguments where people discovered, almost by accident, that they didn’t actually need permission to govern themselves. They already were.
The conventional story treats revolution as this dramatic rupture of tea in the harbor, muskets at Lexington, suddenly we’re at war.
But Morton shows us something more interesting and more terrifying to established power: the quiet multiplication of parallel institutions, shadow governments forming like frost crystals, each one a small act of collective imagination that said “we can simply organize ourselves.” By the time the shooting started, the revolution had already happened. The British just hadn’t noticed they were already ruling over a polite fiction.
What makes this scholarship valuable isn’t just the primary source work, but that Morton is willing to take seriously the proposition that history isn’t made in the moments we’re told to look at. It’s made in the hundreds of small committee meetings and town hall arguments where people discovered, almost by accident, that they didn’t actually need permission to govern themselves. They already were.
May 31, 2025
Norton argues in this book that while the war effort didn't start in earnest until the summer of 1775 and independence wasn't declared until July of 1776, the American Revolution was really accomplished during the long year of 1774 (lasting from December of 73 to April of 75). In that long year, American colonists elected committees and congresses to speak for them and often followed their instructions instead of the orders of the British governors sent to control them. While the book is dense, it does deliver on this argument showing that, while contested, these democratically elected groups did function as governments within their spheres. And facing an out-of-control tyrannical government of our own in 2025, it is worthwhile for Americans to begin refreshing or acquiring their knowledge of our Founders and their fight for freedom.
June 26, 2021
A rousing book about the growing tensions with the American colonists and the British royalty and military. The Boston Tea Party which was not thought of as a great incident by most further founding fathers. Boston especially heated up and colonists started wondering if they should unite their colonies including Quebec and become a republic. Many leaders felt that Britain would let them go peacefully and not fight back. Some dreamed of what a republic should look like, most frequently modeling Ancient Greece. A discussion of a continental Congress came up. Two had happened before without much result. What to do?
July 9, 2025
This book is extremely detailed of the actions and correspondence of the noted, and lessors of The Colonies, from early 1774 thru the declaration in 1775. Excellent book for historical research, as the author cites multiple examples for most events.
July 29, 2020
Pulitzer winning history that informs and entertains at the same time.
August 8, 2024
I enjoyed this book, but it was a little too in-the-weeds for a general audience like me.
January 18, 2021
I appreciated how Norton delved into the budding loyalist opposition during this period. So often, when reading narratives about the run-up to the Revolutionary War following the Boston Tea Party, we don't realize that despite the "patriotic" fervor in Massachusetts, the rush to Independence wasn't as great in other Colonies. I also appreciate how Norton contrasts the Boston Tea Party with how residents of New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston dealt with their own tea crises. There's a lot of information in this book that's "new to me" despite reading several other books about this period in our nation's history.
The downside to the book: Norton is no prose stylist. The reading, at times, is a slog. Also, this book can read as one big name drop... Norton constantly drops loads of names, explaining how Colonist X or Englishman Y described about an event in their letters... but too often Norton fails to provide much (if any) identifying context about that person. Was X a wealthy merchant? A farmer? A loyalist who would eventually flee to England?
The downside to the book: Norton is no prose stylist. The reading, at times, is a slog. Also, this book can read as one big name drop... Norton constantly drops loads of names, explaining how Colonist X or Englishman Y described about an event in their letters... but too often Norton fails to provide much (if any) identifying context about that person. Was X a wealthy merchant? A farmer? A loyalist who would eventually flee to England?
January 18, 2021
An extensive review of the events leading up to the Battles of Lexington & Concord that began with the Boston Tea Party. Learned so much. Must read for all Americans who simply do not know enough about America's founding and the absolute courage and conviction of our founders.
August 10, 2020
I had been looking forward to reading this book since I first heard it mentioned several years ago on the podcast Ben Franklin's World, in an interview with the author and host Liz Covart.
This book fills in a major gap in the story of how the American colonies got from protests against taxes on tea to armed rebellion against Great Britain. The usual way of teaching/talking about the run-up to the American Revolution starts with the Boston Tea Party in December 1773 and jumps straight to the Battle of Lexington and Concord in April 1775. In the "long year" between those two events, the reactions and actions of colonists across all 13 colonies are documented, along with that of leaders in Parliament and King George III. Norton weaves fascinating source material into a complex narrative that highlights the numerous divisions and differences among the colonists and British leaders. Unlike typical narratives that lionize a handful of colonial rebel leaders, Norton takes into full account the reactions and reasoning of a number of the royal governors, Tories, and even the different viewpoints that women bring to the narrative as the long year of 1774 rolls along.
I believe that, like science, the study of history can only improve when we keep asking "why?" This book helped answer a lot of my questions about how and why the Revolution finally did take place, and related small mysteries.
This book fills in a major gap in the story of how the American colonies got from protests against taxes on tea to armed rebellion against Great Britain. The usual way of teaching/talking about the run-up to the American Revolution starts with the Boston Tea Party in December 1773 and jumps straight to the Battle of Lexington and Concord in April 1775. In the "long year" between those two events, the reactions and actions of colonists across all 13 colonies are documented, along with that of leaders in Parliament and King George III. Norton weaves fascinating source material into a complex narrative that highlights the numerous divisions and differences among the colonists and British leaders. Unlike typical narratives that lionize a handful of colonial rebel leaders, Norton takes into full account the reactions and reasoning of a number of the royal governors, Tories, and even the different viewpoints that women bring to the narrative as the long year of 1774 rolls along.
I believe that, like science, the study of history can only improve when we keep asking "why?" This book helped answer a lot of my questions about how and why the Revolution finally did take place, and related small mysteries.
March 18, 2020
Deeply Detailed
This book is extremely detailed of the actions and correspondence of the noted, and lessors of The Colonies, from early 1774 thru the declaration in 1775. Although we are all familiar with most of the story, it is striking how diverse, animated and hostile Colonials actually were. The amount of divisiveness and political intrigue in contemporary politics pales in comparison. Equally, the number of loyalists opinions and legal interpretations are as critical to understanding the environment as are those of the Patriots. The author is painstaking in showing both sides. The English Parliament was equally frustrated and some parliamentarians supported the Colonies. The 20 year history of Colonial resistance and non collaboration had been building since 1754 and the French and Indian War. Colonials and Parliament were equally ready and prepared to administer draconian measures- Boston and the Tea were the triggers.
This author uses primary source archives and diaries to show the diverse opinions. At times it will feel tedious and redundant but worth the wait.
Lastly, the authors sources, notes and bibliography make this an astoundingly great reference. If you are a period historian, this book as a reference guide would prove invaluable.
This book is extremely detailed of the actions and correspondence of the noted, and lessors of The Colonies, from early 1774 thru the declaration in 1775. Although we are all familiar with most of the story, it is striking how diverse, animated and hostile Colonials actually were. The amount of divisiveness and political intrigue in contemporary politics pales in comparison. Equally, the number of loyalists opinions and legal interpretations are as critical to understanding the environment as are those of the Patriots. The author is painstaking in showing both sides. The English Parliament was equally frustrated and some parliamentarians supported the Colonies. The 20 year history of Colonial resistance and non collaboration had been building since 1754 and the French and Indian War. Colonials and Parliament were equally ready and prepared to administer draconian measures- Boston and the Tea were the triggers.
This author uses primary source archives and diaries to show the diverse opinions. At times it will feel tedious and redundant but worth the wait.
Lastly, the authors sources, notes and bibliography make this an astoundingly great reference. If you are a period historian, this book as a reference guide would prove invaluable.
March 19, 2020
An extensively researched (if not an elegantly written) account of the evolution of colonial disengagement from the British Empire and its colonial governments-- from the Boston Tea Party and the Coercive Acts to the battles of Lexington and Concord. Told through extensive review of contemporary pamphlets, newspaper reports, broadsides, letters and diaries, Professor Norton describes not only the bitter hostility of the colonies towards Parliament and (later) the King, but the fiery divisions among the colonists themselves. As the book shows, the American Revolution was as much a "civil war" as a war for independence. The book makes plain that the cries for independence and republican government did not start with the Declaration of 1776, but began years before, soon after the taxed tea hit the water of Boston Harbor.
June 5, 2020
There was a lot of interesting information about the Boston Tea Party in this book that I have never read about before which was very interesting. I enjoyed reading about the colonists reaction to what happened in Boston, not just the Bostonian and the British reactions. Mary Beth Norton did a terrific job explaining in great detail how the relationship between the colonies and Britain collapsed. The only negative thing that I have to say about this book is that some of the information sounds repetitive and it takes a very long time to get through the book. All in all though, it was a very interesting read and I would suggest this book to any Academic library to buy or for anyone who likes to read about history or politics. I give this book a four out of five stars.
December 16, 2020
If you have any interest at all in American, political, or colonial history you have to read this book. It focuses on events from roughly December 1773 up to April 1775 in the American colonies. We (in the U.S.) have all learned about the Boston Tea Party, Paul Revere, Redcoats, King George III, the First Continental Congress, Concord, etc. 1774 reveals more of the story from the year+ leading up to Concord, highlighting the views of both those loyal to Britain and those who believed it was time for change. It was a time of great controversy throughout the colonies when small decisions resulted in irreversible change. The author includes 137 pages of notes and sources for further perusal.
July 15, 2020
Get ready for a blow by blow of -he said- then -she said. This book gives the varied reactions of different people during the events of late 1773 through to the spring of 1775. It is dense. It will help to have a good understanding of the people and events of this time ahead of picking up this particular volume, as it will help to keep things straight as this book takes a deep dive into the various arguments taking place mainly in the North American colonies. I appreciate how the notes, bibliography, and index are done. There does not seem to be much of a through story or persuasion except for the cataloging of events and opinions of the moment.
December 28, 2020
This book was so well researched. It was a little hard going as much of the text was written in the English of the day. It was so informative. Most of the people involved were unknown to me. These are really our forefathers as much as the ones well known. The tactics of the colonists were definitely suspect.
June 9, 2020
Scholarly work. In summary, our Revolution was not one pot coming to boil, but many pots boiling over on a tremendous stoves across the Colonies. The folks “were mad as Hell and weren’t going to take it any more”
July 9, 2020
Not for the casual reader. The list of primary sources alone covers more than nine pages; the bibliography totals 14 pages. Can be challenging to read. So much of this time period that I have not read in other books. Recommend for those studying the time period.
May 18, 2020
Not an interesting narrative, little to no analysis. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone but those most extremely interested in the minutiae of 1770s import tariffs.
August 31, 2022
Mary Beth Norton's 1774 argued that the actual events of American Revolution action occurred over the course of the 1774 and into 1775 before the war broke out in April 1775. After the Boston Tea Party, with similar protests or blocking of tea from American ports in 1773, Norton illustrated that the response of the English colonists was anything but united. Many "respectable" opinions, even those who would be loud voices for independence later, called for the tea to be paid back and said the protesters went too far, but the draconian response of the British government in shutting down Boston and installing Gage as a military governor necessitated a protest boycott of British goods. Mostly about the words in newspapers and pamphlets exchanged in a furious debate, Norton also shows the Tory conservatives rallied behind the term "Loyalist" in order to condemn the protesters as anti-monarchy, which that sort of polarization may have eventually pushed the "Whigs" to the position of rebellion.
The most fascinating part of the book to me was less about the debates, but when an actual "revolution" occurred on the ground, when the Committees of correspondence/safety/whatever that were enforcing the boycott or meeting in opposition to royal governors actually started taking practical control of the functions of government and pushed out the old colonial governmental apparatuses in 1774, usually through violence when colonial officials showed up to carry out their jobs. In one instance, an official showed up to a Massachusetts town to start his job and was met with 50 men with clubs telling him to turn around. It became such that only in places where the British military operated did any sort of colonial government continue to exist.
Some interesting stuff, especially how some of the criticisms lobbed by the loyalists have stuck, such as the hypocrisy of men advocating for liberty while owning people. It was a very divided society, extremely politically polarized and the utter breakdown of royal authority crumbled very quickly. The biggest dissenters to that change, the Tory conservatives, quickly were largely silenced because they understood British Constitutionalism as utter loyalty to Parliamentary authority while the moderates and radicals saw the local assemblies as the source of authority, bound by a constitutional monarch (more like today's British Commonwealth).
In the end, many people participated in the Continental Association (the organization set up by the extra-legal Continental Congress to enforce the boycott) but thought war would come anyway, and stockpiled up for their militias in as much guns, gunpowder, bullets, and even cannon buried underground as they could muster. Eventually the British military's attempt at cracking down on those arms depots and trying to arrest ringleaders led to the outbreak of war. But the real on the ground American Revolution had already begun.
The most fascinating part of the book to me was less about the debates, but when an actual "revolution" occurred on the ground, when the Committees of correspondence/safety/whatever that were enforcing the boycott or meeting in opposition to royal governors actually started taking practical control of the functions of government and pushed out the old colonial governmental apparatuses in 1774, usually through violence when colonial officials showed up to carry out their jobs. In one instance, an official showed up to a Massachusetts town to start his job and was met with 50 men with clubs telling him to turn around. It became such that only in places where the British military operated did any sort of colonial government continue to exist.
Some interesting stuff, especially how some of the criticisms lobbed by the loyalists have stuck, such as the hypocrisy of men advocating for liberty while owning people. It was a very divided society, extremely politically polarized and the utter breakdown of royal authority crumbled very quickly. The biggest dissenters to that change, the Tory conservatives, quickly were largely silenced because they understood British Constitutionalism as utter loyalty to Parliamentary authority while the moderates and radicals saw the local assemblies as the source of authority, bound by a constitutional monarch (more like today's British Commonwealth).
In the end, many people participated in the Continental Association (the organization set up by the extra-legal Continental Congress to enforce the boycott) but thought war would come anyway, and stockpiled up for their militias in as much guns, gunpowder, bullets, and even cannon buried underground as they could muster. Eventually the British military's attempt at cracking down on those arms depots and trying to arrest ringleaders led to the outbreak of war. But the real on the ground American Revolution had already begun.
November 4, 2021
Mary Beth Norton has spent much of her career as an historian writing about the American Revolution, specifically about the roles of American woman and American loyalists. In her latest story, her focus is on the year 1774, although she begins with the December, 1773, Tea Crisis and ends with the British troops on their way to Concord in April, 1775. (Hence the designation of the "long year" of 1774.) Once again, she has researched her material very deeply, uncovering enormous amounts of written commentary from Americans on both sides of the question of "rebellion" during that fateful year. A few insights from the book stand out. First and foremost, there was tremendous division within the colonies (even in "radical" Massachusetts) about the actions of the American colonists as they created extralegal government institutions and prepared for war in the aftermath of the passage of the Coercive Acts. In the contemporary historical memory of the American Revolution, the loyalists are viewed as misguided at best, but very possibly treasonous. If the Revolution had failed (if, say, Washington had failed at Trenton), the loyalists would have had statues erected in American cities. Instead, they are usually an afterthought in the typical accounts of the events of those years. Norton brings them out of the shadows during that crucial year, when the "critical mass" building toward open rebellion had not yet been achieved. I was struck how the views of the loyalists were attacked, discounted, and buried. The "cancel culture" of the 21st century certainly did have historical precedent during those fateful months. The second major point that I gained from the book was that in the actions of 1774, when colony after colony created government institutions outside of the "constitutional" framework of the British imperial system, it was clear that the goal was inevitably going to be a quest for a complete break from Britain and a struggle with independence as its goal. It is difficult for historians to write about events whose outcome is so well known where one can feel the uncertainty and anxiety that was present as the events unfolded. Norton has certainly succeeded in pulling off that challenge. For those wishing to read about the government principles and philosophy of empire that lay behind each side of the (in 1774 at least) rhetorical struggle at the heart of the American Revolution, this is the book for you.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews