Armed resistance to the ministerial policy, even in the organized manner and on the seri ous scale with which it was carried on in 1775, probably did not appear to the majority of Americans at first to involve necessarily a sepa ration from the empire. And yet the possibility of such an event as a last resort could not have been entirely absent from the minds of thinking men. It is in the sense of a determined and deliberate aim at such separation on the part of the average substantial citizen, that general dis claimers of the idea of separation should be interpreted. Such a project was probably in the minds of some of the leading agitators from an early stage of the controversy. But it was not until the consequences of the determined stand of the king and ministry on the issue of coercion thoroughly carried out had been mani fested and the elements of passion, prejudice and interest injected still more vigorously into the situation, that independence could be made to appear desirable or necessary. The king's rejection of the "Olive-branch Petition" and the proclamation naming the Americans as rebels, in August 1776, as well as the employ ment of foreign mercenary troops, on the one hand, and, on the other, the appeal to local in terest made by the experience of the newly-or ganized State governments, as well as the in ability of the moderate Harty in America to pro pose any plan which promised success in achiev ing what was now regarded as essential, all had a powerful effect and served to obliterate the recollection and valuation of the possible ad vantages of connection with Great Britain under more normal circumstances. All these considerations were popularized and brought vividly to the imaginations of great numbers by Paine's pamphlet, 'Common Sense.' By May 1776, the Congress, which had acted for a year as a revolutionary genetal government for the United Colonies, felt justified in entering upon consideration of the subject. Increasing con sciousness of the need of foreign assistance, and clearer perception of the necessity of in dependence as a condition of such assistance enforced the more strictly domestic reasons for the development of the sentiment of separation and on 4 July 1776 the formal Declaration was signed.
In summary, it may be said that, fundamen tally, the causes of the American Revolution are to be found in the differences of characteristics progressively developed in the two English communities on the different sides of the At lantic. These differences made the administra tion of the system of government by which these communities were connected a matter of difficulty under any circumstances. When a change was made in the manner and purpose of the administration of this system, an issue was raised which the English community was partic ularly ill-prepared to meet. The Americans
practically demanded recognition of a new theory of the empire, precedents for which ex isted, not in the law, but in the facts of adminis tration of the existing theory. At the beginning of the controversy the apprehensions of the Americans were more concerned with the possi bilities of the existing theory for despotism than with any serious tyranny actually exercised. But the conduct of this controversy over this issue was so unskilfully managed, as it turned out, that the feelings of discontent operative in the colonies for nearly a century were stimulated to the point of resistance. Opportunity was created for what was hardly more than a large and aggressively active minority to carry this resistance to the point of separation from the mother-country. That a more skilful management of the controversy would have prevented the ultimate separation cannot be affirmed with confidence. The scale and char acter of the development of the colonial governments was making of them common Ivealths not likely to be satisfied with a relation very far short of that which existed between Canada and England after 1837. And for such a relation England was hardly prepared much before that date. See COLONY.
Bibliography.— Bigelow, J., in 'Cambridge Modern History' (Chap. 6, Vol. VII, New York 1903) ; Doyle, J. A., id. (Chap. 5, Vol. VII, New York 1903) ; Fisher, L. G., 'True History of the American Revolution' (Phila delphia 1902) ; id., 'Struggle for American In dependence' (2 vols., Philadelphia 1908) ; Fiske, J., 'The American Revolution' (2 vols., Cam bridge 1896-97) ; Frothingham, R., 'The Rise of the Republic of the United States' (1871) ; Howard, G. E., 'Preliminaries of the Revolu tion, 1763-75' (New York 1905) ; Lecky, W. E. H., 'History of England in the Eighteenth Century' (Vol. III, London 1878-90) ; Marks, N. A. N., 'England and America, 1763 to 1783' (2 vols., Cleveland 1916); Osgood, H. L., The American Revolution' (in Political Science Quarterly, March 1898) ; Perkins, J. B., France in the American Revolution' (Boston 1911) ; Trevelyan, Sir G. 0., 'The American Revolution' (6 vols., New York 1899-1914) ; Wharton, F., ed. 'Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States' (6 vols., Washington 1889); Winbolt, S. E., 'Ameri can Independence and the French Revolution, 1760-1801' (in Bell's History Source Books,' Vol. XII, 2d ed., London 1915); Win sor, 'Narrative and Critical History of America' (Vol. VI, 1886-89).