On the Origins of American Politics

This is an interesting little book—really, three lectures—where Bailyn builds a bit upon The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. He is essentially looking for differences in outcomes between English settlers in North America and English subjects back home. In this sense, he is asking: Why did the United States have a revolution while Britain did not?

His answer is that, through the 17th and early 18th centuries, both regions had a great deal of similarities, especially with regard to their tri-partite theory of government. The king would be represented by the institution of monarchy, the aristocrats would represented in the House of Lords, and the rest would be represented in the House of Commons. That way, limits were placed on monarchy to prevent despotism, the House of Lords to prevent oligarchy, and the House of Commons to prevent mob rule.

Bailyn finds that, ultimately, the divergence between the two came about in the systems of government after 1730. While each branch of government constrained the others in Britain and the North American colonies before 1730, the executive branch in the colonies grew stronger with regard to other branches while being hamstrung by royal decrees. As a result, governorships were the seat of power in English colonies—the judiciary was fully subordinate to the governor, and legislatures were much weaker—but they did not have the means to maneuver effectively because they were limited by direct orders and instructions from London. This made it appear that the forces of government ruled arbitrarily, while the same rule in Britain was viewed as “good governance.”

This book is particularly useful in thinking about political tensions and the evolution of colonists’ increasingly conspiratorial thinking in the lead-up to the American Revolution. It’s worth skimming, but it isn’t particularly comprehensive.