audiobook An Empire on the Edge: How Britain Came to Fight America by Nick Bunker in History

Review

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful. A Conventional Whig Narrative of the EventsBy J. AronsonThis is a very good book that examines the proximate causes of the American Revolution from the British point of view. But it is not without its faults; weaknesses and omissions.All historical narratives must pick a reference point and Bunker; clearly following the conventional Whig narrative; has chosen as his reference point the Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights of 1688. That has proven to be very unsatisfactory for explaining the American Revolution because; like many others before him; he is then forced to argue that the colonials quite suddenly became a revolutionary people between 1772-74 because of the Stamp Act and the legislation that followed. It also requires the reader to believe that somehow; some way; the several committees of correspondence and delegates to the First Continental Congress were suddenly able to make revolutionaries out of a people who had been content to be ruled by Great Britain before 1772.A better narrative would recognize that the independent political history of American colonies began in 1630 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and that the Puritans who founded the Bay Colony framed their government with reference to Coke and Selden's Petition of Right of 1628 and with reference to Part One (and likely Part Two) of Coke's Institutes. Bunker should also have known that from 1630 until at least 1782; New Englanders were effectively one people and that Massachusetts; Connecticut; Rhode Island; Maine and New Hampshire were individual colonies or districts spun off from Massachusetts and formed what amounted to a New England federated republic that imagined its natural borders to be the Atlantic Ocean and the Hudson and St. Lawrence Rivers.A better narrative would recognize that between 1630-60 New England was a mirror of the Parliamentary faction that won the English Civil War and cut Charles I's head off on January 30; 1649; complete with a Presbyterian/Grandee/proto-whig faction and an Independent/Leveller/republican faction The narrative should have noted that New England had been on the verge of rejecting English sovereignty in 1635; 1662 and 1689. It should have noted that New England sent many volunteers to the Eastern Association and New Model Army; that New Englanders were well represented in the New Model Army Council and at the Putney debates. It would have noted that the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641 heavily influenced the several Leveller "Agreements of the People" published between 1647-49. It would have noted that Sir Henry Vane the Younger; Hugh Peter and Col. Thomas Rainborowe all had strong connections to Massachusetts and that John Winthrop was related by marriage to Peter and Rainborowe. It would have noted that John Winthrop's son; Stephen; was a colonel in the New Model Army during the Commonwealth and Protectorate and that governor John Leverett; another New Model veteran; provided sanctuary to three of Charles I's regicides. It would have noted Roger Williams obtained Rhode Island's charter from Oliver Cromwell in 1652 and that all of New England can be accurately characterized as a federation of Leveller republics because they were based on the idea of popular sovereignty in the context of constitutional democratic republic based on broad male suffrage. It would have observed that while Bay Colony shipping flew the red ensign at sea and at the entrance to Boston Harbor; inland the colony flew the defaced red ensign (with the cross of St. George removed) and never acknowledged that the king of England was sovereign in any official document except in the papers carried by its ships at sea. It might have noted that after 1707; New Englanders tended to refer to themselves as "English" and to those in the mother country as "British." He might have noted that while the colonial upper class tended to be Presbyterian/Grandees who became more wiggish after 1691; inland the people remained republicans of the Leveller variety. It might have been noted that by definition; a republican is not a whig because all whigs hold that the institutions of government; not those being governed; are sovereign.I could go on.Bunker's grasp of American colonial history and political system seems to be as weak as that of Lord North and George III but his understanding of the doings at court and in Parliament between 1770-75 as the relate to the final breach with the American Colonies is enlightening and well worth five stars.63 of 64 people found the following review helpful. The Other Side Of A Revolutionary Coin: An Essential Guide to the British POVBy Laurence R. BachmannNick Bunker's "An Empire On The Edge" continues the now-and-then tradition of exploring the American Revolution from a British perspective. It is; I think; a key ingredient to understanding our history. It also has the wonderful advantage of putting a fresh face on familiar tales. As well as providing balance and perspective; Bunker tackles the question of why in the world the British would allow themselves to be involved in the 18th century version of our Vietnam War....Bernard Bailyn's Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson and Robert Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause (among others) have laid groundwork for Bunker's effort. Bailyn's story of the loyalist governor of Massachusetts just before the outbreak of hostilities tells the tale of a decent; if nepotistic and confrontational man whose conservative instincts were completely out of step with the colony he governed. The rabble (or Patriots) confirm this Loyalist's worst fears during the Stamp Act crises burning down his home as he literally runs out the back door. Bailyn's work was important; showing a Loyalist not as a toady or sycophant; but an aggressive conservative trying to maintain an old order that was beyond saving.Twenty years later I thought The Glorious Cause; added an important layer to the story with Robert Middlekauff successfully arguing George III Co.; were hardly tyrants. In fact; their greatest crimes were obduracy; a lack of imagination and a complete misreading of what today we would call "the situation on the ground." The British elite failed to realize; that ousting the French from the continent; had ironic and unintended consequences. Americans no longer regarded a British army as its protector; but rather an occupying force; delaying their migration to and through the Ohio valley. Middlekauff added the significant observation that colonies in most regards; were rarely on the front burner of British policy. Too often they were hardly noticed.Now comes Nick Bunker's An Empire On The Edge; a marvelous book delving deeper into the British perspective than any I have encountered before. From prologue to epilogue; and the 350 pages in between; the author debunks stale assumptions; does a superb job of dusting off newspaper accounts and cabinet ministry minutes to look at what people were actually saying and doing at the time. This "on-the-scene perspective" is an importantly different POV that challenges a few treasured assumptions and arrives at more censorious conclusions. Where Bailyn saw Hutchison as out-of-step but decent; Bunker sees a man self-serving and prickly. Middlekauff's conclusion the British were unimaginative is ratcheted up by Bunker to ineffectual and hidebound.There is also some nice emphasis on less familiar tales such as the importance of Rhode Island and the Gaspee incident leading up to what everyone considers the main event--Boston's Tea Party. Per Nick Bunker; Rhodies were the first colony to openly revolt with the merchant class devising not only an argument for rebellion but then implementing it with the attack upon and seizure of a British ship of the line; The Gaspee. The letters of Rhode Islanders such as Stephen Hopkins; and the Brown brothers; leave no question of intent. The response of the Admiralty and its supporters back in England leave no doubt of England's complete horror at the precedent and the dire consequences that would follow. Lord North's response was sparked not by Bostonians disguised as Indians but by Rhode Islanders acting as pirates. Bunker makes a convincing argument the Gaspee incident and not the Tea Party that sent the British government on a disastrous course.This re-emphasis and another look at events such as at the Gaspee incident is just one of the pleasures of An Empire On The Edge. The book is distinguished with excellent chapters about the importance of the East India Company in helping determine a ruinous policy; the penchant for speculation that precipitated financial insolvencies; leading colonists to believe England less and less a reliable source for capital; and a scathing account of the influence (or lack thereof) of a woeful Colonial Office. The colonial system that would later be honed to perfection in India; and the embrace of Adam Smith's free market philosophy were decades away.Bunker's writing is engaging and thorough (some might say repetitive; but not I). The use of primary sources (news articles; letters; dispatches to Whitehall) keeps the reader in the moment. I didn't always agree with the author--I give no credence whatsoever to the notion that an imaginative; revised policy could have kept the colonies in the Empire. When France was evicted; the die was cast. Also; there is a tendency to hold Britain's feet to the fire but let Americans off the hook. To whit there is passing reference but no analysis of the hypocrisy of Americans using intimidation and threats of violence (to force tea brokers' resignations) whilehowling from the other side of their mouths they were being coerced by Parliament. Or the morally dubious behavior of burning down a governor's home to complain about unfair treatment. Is a violent mob or handful of "enforcers" any better than an arrogant Parliament or unsympathetic monarch? Bunker doesn't seem interested in exploring these questions beyond a page an a half that contributed to a hard line approach when a mob physically tortured a consignee for hours. One can argue they were equally obdurate and rigid.More disconcerting is the occasional lapse in characterization. When describing the mob that had gathered to brow beat the men appointed consignees of the hated tea he writes "...the consignees failed to appear. Another half hour passed and the meeting voted to pursue the guilty men." Guilty? What were the consignees guilty of other than failing to bow to mob intimidation? Bunker seems so caught up in his own revolutionary fervor or just his characterization of the British as short sighted and inept that he forgets the rather important point being unpopular is not the same thing as being guilty.These criticisms; however; are either my opinion or not substantial enough to detract to the book's overall appeal. Bunker defends his conclusions with verve; clear writing and solid research. I think any fair minded person will excuse the occasional lapse and delight in the overall excellence of An Empire On The Edge. First rate.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. A different view of the background of the American RevolutionBy Steven PetersonThis is an interesting take on the origins of the American Revolution. With a twist. Many works on the subject speak of the mighty British Empire against the underdog colonies. This book provides a fascinating variation on that theme. Indeed; according to this book; Great Britain was in difficult straits for a variety of reasons: serious economic difficulties; strained budget by government; the need to trim spending on the military; a complete lack of understanding of the American colonies; decades of having let the colonies "do their thing."The book does not explore the Revolutionary War itself. The focus is what happened up to the outbreak of war. Key issues examined: the problems faced by the East India Tea Company; leading this major economic player in Great Britain to the economic brink; the debt incurred by the "French and Indian War" (which was actually a global struggle); the drifting away from subservience to the Empire by the colonies; the lack of understanding in London by leaders of events and trends within the colonies. At the same time; the colonists did not have a clear picture of politics in London. They would take hold of minor news to assume that they had considerable support from the people in the Empire. A series of misunderstandings by both parties. . . .The work explores the runup to the Boston Tea Party; including events in Rhode Island and elsewhere. The Tea Party; in fact; was only one part of existing resistance as a result of various taxes and enforcement actions by the Empire. The leadership in London is portrayed as bungling; with little clue to the facts on the ground in the colonies. General Gage is portrayed as a ditherer. The major colonial leaders are also described as well as their perceptions of relations with London.This work is a nice corrective to the view that the British Empire was a mighty force.