Synopses & Reviews
Generations of students have been taught that the American Revolution was a revolt against royal tyranny. In this revisionist account, Eric Nelson argues that a great many of our "founding fathers" saw themselves as rebels against the British Parliament, not the Crown.
The Royalist Revolution interprets the patriot campaign of the 1770s as an insurrection in favor of royal power--driven by the conviction that the Lords and Commons had usurped the just prerogatives of the monarch.
Leading patriots believed that the colonies were the king's own to govern, and they urged George III to defy Parliament and rule directly. These theorists were proposing to turn back the clock on the English constitution, rejecting the Whig settlement that had secured the supremacy of Parliament after the Glorious Revolution. Instead, they embraced the political theory of those who had waged the last great campaign against Parliament's "usurpations": the reviled Stuart monarchs of the seventeenth century.
When it came time to design the state and federal constitutions, the very same figures who had defended this expansive conception of royal authority--John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and their allies--returned to the fray as champions of a single executive vested with sweeping prerogatives. As a result of their labors, the Constitution of 1787 would assign its new president far more power than any British monarch had wielded for almost a hundred years. On one side of the Atlantic, Nelson concludes, there would be kings without monarchy; on the other, monarchy without kings.
Review
The Royalist Revolution is a provocative and important contribution to our never-ending interest in the invention of American constitutionalism. It dares the reader to rethink basic premises of American constitutional history. Carefully researched, ingeniously argued, this book will have a significant and controversial impact on scholarship. Jack Rakove, Stanford University
Review
The unseen author of American independence, it turns out, was King George III, who chose to remain a parliamentary monarch, and declined (if he ever understood) the American invitation to become an emperor ruling through several independent parliaments. He obliged Americans to pursue a democratic empire and rethink the role of monarchy in their republic. Eric Nelson's brilliant revision displays both American and British history in their exceptionalisms. J.G.A. Pocock
Review
The Royalist Revolution is the most challenging and original account of the constitutional history of the American Revolution in generations. With admirable lucidity and impeccable scholarship, Eric Nelson traces the ideological origins of colonial revolt and the prerogatives of a powerful Presidency back to their roots in seventeenth-century British arguments against Parliament. In light of his findings, the Founding Era will never look quite the same again. David Armitage, author of The Declaration of Independence: A Global History
Review
Sure to fire up an old debate, Nelson's book constitutes an important contribution to the literature on early American constitutionalism. Publishers Weekly
Synopsis
The founding fathers were rebels against the British Parliament, Eric Nelson argues, not the Crown. As a result of their labors, the 1787 Constitution assigned its new president far more power than any British monarch had wielded for 100 years. On one side of the Atlantic were kings without monarchy; on the other, monarchy without kings.
About the Author
Eric Nelson is the Robert M. Beren Professor of Government at Harvard University.
Harvard University