BOOK REVIEW:
ERIC NELSON’S
THE ROYALIST REVOLUTION
by Mark Steven Osborne
In 1776, a band of American rebels launched a revolution, forever
separating the American colonies from the tyranny of the British
crown. At least, that is the history lesson that American schoolchildren have been taught for generations regarding the founding
of the United States of America. But is that the whole story? Eric
Nelson challenges the traditional “rebel versus king” viewpoint
of the American Revolution in his book, The Royalist Revolution:
Monarchy and the American Founding.1 In his book, Nelson posits
that the American colonies rebelled not against an imperial British
monarchy, but against an overreaching British Parliament.
In The Royalist Revolution, Nelson maintains that it was the
Glorious Revolution of 1688 that enabled the British Parliament to engage in these “encroachments.”6 In 1688, Parliament,
eager to assert its supremacy over the British monarchy, claimed
legislative dominion over the American colonies.7 When Parliament began to legislate for the colonies, which had already
formed their own legislatures, the colonists responded with the
Boston Tea Party and the poetic refrain—“no taxation without
representation.”8
While the “patriot royalist” theory proffered by Nelson has some
The Royalist Revolution is Nelson’s latest
basis in fact, the theory is plagued by inconFor modern day American
work in a series of books on the foundsistencies that cast doubt on its validity. For
ing of America. The founding of America legislators and legal scholars, this instance, Nelson describes Thomas Jefferson
is often portrayed as if all the Founding
provides a revived appreciation as being a “patriot royalist” in the lead-up to
Fathers had the same ideology and the
the revolution based upon Jefferson’s assertion
of the multiplicity of motives that the colonies were accountable to the king
same goals for a new nation. Nelson’s book
series offers a different perspective.
and not to Parliament—an assertion that in
and goals that spawned the
essence rejected Parliamentary authority to
American Revolution.
For instance, in his book, The Hebrew Republegislate for the colonies.9 But the Declaration
lic, Nelson points to the oft-overlooked influence of Jewish Scrip- of Independence, written by Jefferson, lists grievances against the
tures and covenant theology on the American political conscience.2 king, not Parliament.10 So it is not unreasonable to conclude that
In The Greek Tradition in Republican Thought, Nelson explores the many of the architects of the American Revolution were looking
influence of ancient Greek thought on Whig political theory.3
to throw off monarchy.
In his third book, The Royalist Revolution, Nelson delves deeper
into the motivations for the American Revolution. In this book,
Nelson explores the influence of “patriot royalism” on the American Revolution and the subsequent founding of the nation. The
“patriot royalism” theory maintains that a significant faction of
American patriots were really “royalists” who objected, not to the
British monarchy, but to an overreaching British Parliament.3
Indeed, contrary to the traditional portrayal of American colonists rebelling against the cruel oppressor, King George III, Nelson presents a picture of American “patriot royalists” attempting
to restore the supremacy of the Stuart monarchy—a supremacy
displaced by the British Parliament.4 In fact, according to Nelson, the American Revolution was launched not against King
George III, but rather against the encroachments of an overzealous British Parliament.5
page 8 | LIBERTY LEGAL JOURNAL | SPRING/SUMMER 2016
Furthermore, in a misguided attempt to spotlight the royalist
sympathies that supposedly existed among the American patriots,
Nelson overstates his case by offering a timeline that is less than
persuasive. He describes a fickle patriot faction that first embraces royalism, then rejects royalism, and then embraces it again in
1787 with the signing of the United States Constitution.11
Despite its shortcomings, The Royalist Revolution provides valuable insight into the founding of America. First, Nelson reminds
his readers that the Framers shared neither a single ideology nor
the same goals in pursuing independence from Great Britain.
For modern day American legislators and legal scholars, this provides a revived appreciation of the multiplicity of motives and
goals that spawned the American Revolution.