Second, by framing the founding of America as an intra-imperial struggle, the reader has the opportunity to see the American
Founding, not as a rejection of the nation’s English roots, but as
a continuation of a long and storied British tradition.
Finally, for those who believe that American history prior to the
signing of the Declaration of Independence and the ratification
of the Constitution is of little import in the turbulent sea of
contemporary politics, The Royalist Revolution inspires a deeper
look into the evolving American political psyche. Nelson invites
the reader to look afresh at the complex and deeply rooted influence of the English political character on the founding of America. For those who believe in an integrative approach to law and
policy that incorporates history and custom, the book promises more than mere intellectual stimuli. It provides material for
building a stronger America.
My country, ‘tis of thee,
sweet land of liberty…
GOD SAVE THE KING?
ERIC NELSON, THE ROYALIST REVOLUTION (2014).
1
See generally, ERIC NELSON, THE HEBREW REPUBLIC: JEWISH SOURCES
AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF EUROPEAN POLITICAL THOUGHT
(2011); see also Ferdon, Gai, The Political Use of the Bible in Early Modern Britain: Royalists, Republicans, Fifth Monarchists and Levellers (Jubilee Centre, 2013). http://www.jubilee-centre.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/resource_448.pdf.
2
See generally, ERIC NELSON, THE GREEK TRADITION IN REPUBLICAN THOUGHT (2004).
4
ERIC NELSON, THE ROYALIST REVOLUTION 2 (2014).
5
ERIC NELSON, THE ROYALIST REVOLUTION 2 (2014).
6
Id. at 4 (describing King George III as refusing American entreaties to take
back the Stuart prerogative powers).
3
See id. (Nelson notes revolutionary era Prime Minister Lord North’s opinion
that the “American war” was not a “war of the crown” but a “war of parliament.”).
8
See id. at 32-33.
9
See id. at 57 (Jefferson would develop a reputation for supporting anti-monarchical movements such as the French Revolution. In this author’s opinion, it is
unlikely that Jefferson held to the royalist opinion.).
10
Id.
11
Id. at 184-85. Nelson explains this by pointing out the narrow point of unity
among the patriots on a “small number of central claims.” Id. at 184.
7
SPRING/SUMMER 2016 | LIBERTY LEGAL JOURNAL | page 9