When discussing historical events, multiple perspectives can be taken to fully understand the complexity of the occurrence. No exception to this is the American Revolution, which has been debated by accredited historians for centuries. Throughout the debates, several different interpretative methods have been adopted, each explaining the intentions and motives behind the actions of Britain and Colonial America in a different manner. Two relevant historians, George Bancroft, and Charles McLean Andrews, each adopted their own interpretations to support their writings. Their differing versions of what had occurred are influenced by the political and social climate of which the historian had lived in. While looking at the writings, analyzing the historical context of the author and their period can be just, if not more important than looking at the event itself. Depending on the personal and social biases existing at the time, authors may interpret texts differently to fit a narrative.  

Bancroft, a 19th century historian, centered his writings around the Whig Interpretation which focused on the idea that Britain was a tyrannical and overbearing ruler¹. Most importantly, his writings present that the Crown gave the colonies no option but to revolt to gain freedom.  On the other hand, Andrews, a historian who published his writings over a century later than Bancroft’s volume regarding the American Revolution, believed that the revolutionary war was the fault of both Britain and the Colonies. Andrews often shows a higher level of sympathy for the actions of the crown. His imperialist viewpoint reasons that the actions of Britain were merely an attempt for them to maintain their hold on an economy miles away while trying to figure out their own political and economic stability.  

One thing frequently talked about within both readings, Bancroft’s History of the United States from The Discovery of the American Continent and Andrews’s The Colonial Period is the freedom that the colonies were granted. Bancroft weaves together arguments using primary accounts and his own narrative, stating that the policies Britain placed on the colonies caused limitations on the freedoms of Colonial America². Bancroft’s narrative antagonizes the Crown and their policies–accusing them of being corrupt rulers who could not find stability within their own country. Andrew’s excerpt does not deny the instability within the British Government during the 18th century, rather he gives reasoning for it. Continuing into his writings, Andrews goes on to explain the evolution of the British government, and how at the time they were in the process of their own reform. He states, “The institutions of the seventeenth century were transformed in the eighteenth century, and the governmental situation in 1750 was vastly different from that in 1660. Between these years England passed, constitutionally speaking, from a medieval to a modern state.”³ 

Another issue discussed in the reading was the presence, or lack thereof of the British government. Andrew presents the true purpose of the colonies, explaining that they were merely set up for trade not to be its own nation. Using this notation, he explains how the colonies’ refusal to abide by the commands of the King regarding the traded goods and tariffs were inevitably going to anger the King. He continues to discuss that Britain had invested a significant amount of time and money to support the corporations and proprietors that were within the colonies. According to Andrews, this was the reason Britain had become so frustrated with the colonies once they were progressing towards being completely self-reliant⁴. Bancroft’s excerpt rebuttals this, stating that Britain had neglected the colonies, causing them to have to be self-sufficient in terms of military and government. He calls upon the words of parliament member, Edmund Burke, who was quoted saying “They are ‘our children;’ but when children ask for bread, we are not to give a stone” as a response to Lord Carmarthen’s statement comparing Americans to disobeying children⁵. By calling on this, Bancroft confirms his side of the debate, agreeing that the binding actions of Britain were contradicting their previous methods of ruling.  

While Bancroft and Andrews disagree on the motives and actions of the Crown, there are a few points that overlap with one another. Throughout their writings, both agree that Britain was simply not prepared for the development of the colonies. Referring to the government in Britain, Andrews states, “The system of administration in England was not well adapted for the government of distant plantations.”⁶ This quote, which criticizes the ruling of Britain, could very well be mistaken for one belonging to Bancroft himself. Furthermore, both would agree that both Britain and the colonies had one priority in mind–their own personal interest.  

Overall, Bancroft and Andrews both highlight differing views regarding the conflicts between the colonies and Britain. However, the revolutionary war is not the only instance of this. For centuries, historians have been debating the actuality of a situation–referring to personal accounts, historical data, and other sources. Despite these discrepancies between interpretations, most can agree that each side was seeking to find the best way to support themselves–regardless of if it meant disobeying or partaking in corrupted practices.