Teaching the American Revolution in the United Kingdom is an interesting experience, often revealing unexpected perspectives from British students. Having taught this pivotal period of history in the UK after growing up in the United States, I’ve observed a significant difference in how students on both sides of the Atlantic perceive this era. While Americans often view the revolution through a patriotic lens, British students tend to approach it from a post-colonial viewpoint. Interestingly, instead of defending Britain’s historical role, many British students see the cause of the American colonists as fundamentally just.
It’s crucial to acknowledge that historical interpretation is always shaped by context. In America, revolutionary imagery is pervasive – from the Star-Spangled Banner to the Founding Fathers on currency, the Liberty Bell, and the “Don’t Tread on Me” flags. This constant visual and symbolic presence instills a deep-seated national narrative. The powerful words of the revolution – freedom, liberty, “In God We Trust,” E Pluribus Unum – resonate deeply in the U.S., carrying immense historical weight. While critical analysis of the revolution is certainly present in American discourse, questioning its core principles can sometimes feel like challenging a foundational national myth. In contrast, in Britain, suggesting the revolutionaries were simply rebellious and privileged tax evaders wouldn’t provoke the same strong reactions.
However, and perhaps surprisingly, this negative view isn’t the dominant perspective amongst British students. In my experience, students are generally quicker to acknowledge British missteps than to defend King George III or Lord North. It’s worth remembering that even during the Revolutionary War, a minority in Britain sympathized with the colonists’ grievances. Modern British acceptance of the American colonists’ position stems from values shaped by post-World War II Britain. Democracy, representation, freedom of speech, assembly, and religion are deeply ingrained values. The post-war dismantling of the British Empire, though initially met with some resistance, was largely viewed as a necessary step in aligning with these democratic ideals. Many Britons recognized the inherent contradiction of fighting for democracy in World War II while simultaneously maintaining a colonial empire. Contemporary education in the UK often presents the British Empire in a critical light, highlighting its negative aspects. Even prominent conservative commentators like Jeremy Paxman and Niall Ferguson frequently address the problematic elements of the British Empire, although even the latter sometimes faces criticism for insufficient condemnation.
My initial experience teaching the American Revolution to British students was during my time as a graduate student at the University of Oxford. I assisted in an undergraduate seminar led by Dr. Peter Thompson, an Oxford don. This seminar, pre-dating widespread video conferencing, featured a video link with a parallel group at the University of Virginia, led by Jefferson scholar Peter Onuf. Both groups of students were remarkably bright and engaged. I recall a particular discussion about the contradictions inherent in the Founding Fathers’ rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The question arose: how could their eloquent pronouncements about freedom, liberty, and equality coexist with the stark reality of slavery? One student astutely observed that the inherent conflict within these ideals was almost inevitably destined to divide the nation.
One American student passionately defended the Founding Fathers, stating he would have signed the Declaration and Constitution despite the slavery issue. He acknowledged the problematic compromise but argued it was a necessary gamble to establish a nation founded on the aspirational ideals of liberty and justice, even if imperfectly realized at the time. This perspective, rooted in a sense of national pride and the belief in the nation’s founding principles, didn’t resonate as strongly with the British students. It wasn’t that British students condoned slavery – rather, their historical perspective and perhaps a different national narrative led them to view the Founding Fathers’ actions with a more critical distance.
It’s important to note that the American Revolution isn’t a mandatory topic in all UK schools. In England, up to age 13, the national curriculum offers limited exposure. It might be briefly touched upon as one of nine suggested case studies within a broader unit on Britain from 1745 to 1901, typically covered in just a few weeks during Year 9 (ages 13-14). History becomes optional after this stage. Students who choose to pursue history in greater depth at GCSE and A-Level engage with modules focusing on specific historical periods or themes, rather than a comprehensive chronological survey like the AP History syllabus in the United States. Consequently, in the UK, relatively few students gain in-depth knowledge of the American Revolution.
However, I did teach at a school that dedicated significant time to the American Revolution in Year 9. Annually, after several weeks exploring the causes of the revolution, I would assign an essay asking students to assess whether King George III and his government’s policies were the primary cause of the War of Independence in 1775. Year after year, overwhelmingly, students concluded that the King and his ministers bore the brunt of the blame.
I initially found this consistent verdict perplexing. Was it a lack of critical analysis? Each year, I actively presented the counter-arguments, emphasizing the colonists’ actions. Surely, I thought, British students would be inclined to attribute some blame to the colonists who tarred and feathered British officials, destroyed property in Boston Harbor, and formed militias. When examining George III’s policies, I made sure to explain the rationale behind them. The Proclamation of 1763, for example, intended to prevent further conflict with Native Americans and thereby reduce the need for British troops in America. Given the colonists’ mobilization and stockpiling of weapons, wouldn’t students recognize the British perspective in sending troops to Lexington and Concord?
Yet, the annual conclusion remained remarkably consistent. Students depicted George III and his government as tyrannical, citing taxation without representation, the imposition of troops, the Quartering Act, and laws enacted without colonial consultation. It’s true that the school was located in Hampstead, a traditionally left-leaning area of London, perhaps influencing student perspectives. Finding ardent defenders of the British Empire there was unlikely. However, I’ve observed similar viewpoints in students from diverse areas across England.
Recently, I interviewed a Year 8 student from another school who had studied the American Revolution. “If you had lived during that time, which side would you have supported?” I asked. “The colonists’,” he replied without hesitation. “Why?” “Because they didn’t want to be ruled by the King, and I wouldn’t want to be either.” I could have delved deeper into the nuances – whether the colonists’ grievances were directed at the King or Parliament – but I kept it simple. “And why is that?” “Well, he was constantly taxing them and denying them the right to vote. So, they were justified in rebelling.” Whether through personal conviction or absorbing prevailing societal attitudes, this young student, like many others, seemed to grasp the core principles of the social contract and apply them to the American Revolution, viewing the colonists’ rebellion as a legitimate response to perceived tyranny.
