62 FISHER— MYTH-MAKING PROCESS IN [April 18, 



as it is in London ; that they despised coloniaHsm from the bottom 

 of their hearts ; that they believed it to be unmanly and degrading 

 political slavery, and that the only definition of a colony that they 

 accepted, was one which described a community like the old Greek 

 colonies, sent out by a mother country with the intention that it 

 should become absolutely independent, and that the mother coun- 

 try's only duty towards it would be to protect it from other nations 

 and guarantee its independence. 



That an English writer should describe the Revolution in this 

 way and be compelled to admit that the American patriots had 

 broken away from the British empire because they despised its foun- 

 dation principle, was, and is, a great deal to expect of English nature 

 or of human nature. Neither English tories nor whigs care to de- 

 scribe the Revolution as it occurred ; and it is hardly fair to expect 

 them to do it. Why should they deliberately excite their present 

 colonies and their great and profitable East Indian empire to rebel 

 and justify their rebellion. Is it not evidently much better to 

 say with the whigs that the American patriots dearly loved 

 England and the British empire; that they were contented, dutiful 

 and obedient colonists; that they were not only perfectly willing 

 but anxious to remain in the empire and share its profits and 

 glory of world wide conquest; that their leaving the empire was a 

 mere accident brought about by the blindness, stupidity, and wicked- 

 ness of a certain tory ministry, or, as some later writers have put it, 

 by the blindness, stupidity and self-will of the King, George III., 

 who of himself, against the wishes of his ministry, parliament, and 

 the English people, drove the Americans out of the empire, when 

 they were perfectly willing to stay within it. 



The first important history of the Revolution after Burke's 

 annual summaries in the Register, was a four-volume work by 

 John Andrews, LL.D., published in 1786. It followed the same 

 lines as Burke's essays in the Annual Register, except that it gives 

 much space to stating both sides of the arguments in Parliament, 

 but in such a tiresome, verbose way, that it is almost unreadable. 

 Andrews had no historic ability, no interpretative power; was a 

 mere dull chronicler and summarizer. He cites no evidence or au- 



