George Bancroft's Analysis

During the 18th century, George Bancroft published a ten-volume series called the History Of the United States of America. In this series, he summarizes the past historian viewpoint that the American Revolution just played a role in the evolving of human liberty and affairs, also known as the “Whig view of history.” However; during the late 19th century, historians known as the “imperial school” argued that the revolution was more of a conflict constitutionally with the British Empire, rather than the fulfillment of human liberty and it's destiny. Later on, historians such as George Beer, Charles Andrews, and Lawrence Gibson, believed the revolution was caused by and product of different political viewpoints. While Britain attempted to maintain a strict rule over …show more content…
In a society overcome by the obsession of the spread of communism, historian such as Robert Brown and Edmund Morgan believed that all ranks of people shared the same fundamental political viewpoints of self government. This idea was much like Bancroft’s. After the 1950s, the two interpretations consisted of the controversy over political ideals or economic and social concepts being the cause of of the revolution. Bernard Bailyn emphasized psychological factors as the colonists later became incited by their reading being a cause of the revolution. During the 60s and the 70s, Gary Nash, in The Urban Crucible, and Edward Countryman, in A People in Revolution, elaborated on the economic divisions taking place in the Americas between urban seaports an isolated countrysides. While this idea seems to be socioeconomic, the neoprogressive standpoint isn’t just based off of economic interests. These historians elaborate more on the Americans material circumstances which led to republicanism. Recently, scholars, taking a more trans-Atlantic viewpoint, notice the colonists shifts from identifying as British to identifying as