American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804

Taylor’s approach to recounting the aftermath of the American Revolution sets his narrative apart from more well-worn, celebratory histories. Through focusing on the experiences of Loyalists, enslaved people, and Indigenous Americans, Taylor uncovers many of the difficulties and contradictions of the era. One example is the reflection of J. Mullryne Tattnall, a Loyalist who felt abandoned by his king. Taylor highlights this less traditional approach by beginning Chapter 9 with Tattnall’s words: “We are all cast off. I shall ever tho’ remember with satisfaction that it was not I [who] deserted my King, but my King that deserted me” (159). The citation adds depth and authenticity, broadening the Revolution’s impact beyond a simplified patriotic narrative and humanizing the variety of viewpoints the conflict contained. Another reflection comes from a Loyalist refugee, who lamented, “[t]he war never occasioned half the distress which this peace has done to the unfortunate Loyalists” (160). This statement captures the paradoxical increase in suffering for Loyalists in the post-war period, a notion Taylor emphasizes to underscore the unintended consequences of independence. Such juxtapositions serve as a rhetorical device throughout Taylor’s narrative, highlighting the complications and contradictions that characterized the Revolutionary period.

Taylor’s structure meshes thematic sections that highlight the varied experiences of different societal groups during and after the Revolution. For example, Taylor emphasizes the violent measures taken against Loyalist holdouts by Patriot forces with the quote, “We had to Kill a few Outliers, which Answered a good End” (160). This narrative choice contrasts the ideals of liberty with the practice of vengeance, deepening the exploration of the ideological contradictions of the era.

Among the allusions and references Taylor employs, the invocation of George Washington’s observation, “The present aera is pregnant of great & strange events” (182), serves as a thematic framing device. One of the two epigraphs that appear in Chapter 10, the quote reflects on the tumultuous and transformative nature of the period, setting the stage for an exploration of the unforeseen consequences of the Revolution. By drawing on a figure like Washington, Taylor not only anchors his narrative in historical gravitas but also encapsulates the sentiment of uncertainty and potential that defined the post-Revolution period.

Taylor’s exploration of the Revolution is not limited to its immediate consequences but extends to the ideological underpinnings and philosophical debates that shaped the newly formed United States. This is especially evident in his analysis of the discussions surrounding slavery. In a revealing moment, Oliver Ellsworth’s optimistic yet naive belief that “[s]lavery in time will not be a speck in our country” showcases the founding fathers’ complex relationship with slavery (195). Ellsworth and others believed that slavery would eventually wither away, Taylor writes, due in part to an influx of poor laborers, without the need for the country to make difficult choices. Taylor employs this quote to critique the philosophical lens through which the Revolution’s leaders viewed slavery, juxtaposing it against the harsh realities of an institution that would continue to shape American society. This hopeful yet misguided belief underscores The Contradictions of Liberty: Slavery and Indigenous Dispossession, highlighting the disconnection between the revolutionary ideals of liberty and the entrenched system of slavery that continued to deny freedom to many. This rhetorical device highlights the moral and ethical blind spots in the early republic’s ideological foundation, underscoring the contradictions between the revolutionary ideals of liberty and the persistent injustice of slavery.

Taylor further employs rhetorical and literary devices to enhance his narrative, using irony and juxtaposition to critique the gap between revolutionary ideals and their practical implementation. For instance, Charles Carroll’s lament, “Every man thinks himself a judge—and an adept in the great & difficult science of Legislation” (183), encapsulates the critique from elite circles about the emergent democratic fervor post-Revolution. This reflection on the chaotic democratization of political participation underscores the tensions between established elites and the newly empowered citizenry, highlighting a central idea in Taylor’s analytical framework.

Taylor’s discussion of the fragmented national identity and the deep-seated parochialism of the early republic underscores the enduring challenges of forming a unified nation and points to The Role of Federalism and State Sovereignty in Shaping the United States. The observation that “[i]nstead of feeling as a nation, a state is our country” speaks to the prevailing state-centric loyalties and suspicions (197), which stood in stark contrast to the ideal of a unified national identity. This use of juxtaposition not only illuminates the ideological conflicts of the time but also serves as a reminder of the Revolution’s incomplete project in forging a cohesive national consciousness. By highlighting these unresolved tensions and divisions, Taylor contributes to a deeper understanding of the complications involved in the development of American national identity, providing a critical lens through which to view the legacy of the Revolution and its implications for the future of the United States.