Bailyn states that the pre-established factor of constitutional debate generates from Colonial assemblies developing beyond their early rudimentary forms into larger and more organized institutions for self-governance that are not capable of subordination not by the choice of those who sit in said bodies but by the nature of the assemblies being developed beyond any such cooperation. (Chiara)

The author makes the claim that the way the American Revolution and its values have been interpreted are inherently incorrect because the common glorifying method of understanding the revolution overlooks the extremes and their significance to the nature of the revolution. He states that the glorification method has prevailed precisely because the things that go ignored are hard—by modern standards—to justify or endorse, given the current American governmental system (Chiara)

Chapter 1 focuses on the intellectual environment of 18th-century politics in Britain. One key point was culture, which was British culture since there was no American culture yet. England was very rich at the time and getting richer. England sought to be the preeminent country in the world in terms of finances and liberty. In England, the pure form of government and power was based on the monarchy and aristocracy, ruled by a few people. (Suzanne Ferraro).

However, they also sought to balance a single constitution with a mixed government. This idea is traced back to the idea that the elements of society would be kings, Lords, and Commons. This idea that there should be a balance between 3 entities seems to have inspired the idea that there should be three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. However, the author seems to say that this balance of the English government was inaccurate and did not occur in reality. (Suzanne Ferraro).

I found it interesting how Bailyn wrote about the interpretations of events that took place during the Revolution. He explains how many events of the Revolution were interpreted as “heroic” because of those writing articles about the events taking place. He wrote that often, those writing and interpreting the events were those who had won the conflict/event and were writing their piece during it or directly after the event happened. (Hank L)

The government systems that were created in the colonies were closely analogous to those in Great Britain. Though they created a different effect in the colonies than in England. Many provincial governments in colonies created strife and bitterness. Not only did they cause strife in provincial government, but the system put in place created strife between branches of government (mainly between Executives and Legislatures). (Hank L.)

The interpretation of the American Revolution has often been confused. Many did not know that the British Empire was not just a single state, but rather a complex empire driven to make its colonies fully subordinate to it. The rise of assemblies in the colonies disrupted Britian's plan. They resisted being subordinate and following Britian's orders. Britain becoming richer and richer during this period was thought of as success and inflated its “ego.” It became power hungry and was willing to maintain power and success through any means necessary.(Connor Hanmer)

A main point was that it was important to consider the context and feelings of contemporaries of the revolution, while still being aware that those feelings may not be totally historically accurate. For example, we need to consider what the revolutionaries thought were the causes of the revolution, though that doesn't mean we can't look for other explanations. Another point is that the colonies pre-Revolution were still specifically British in culture, instead of being American in culture as they would become later. (Ezra C.)

I thought it was interesting that Bailyn points out the assumptions made about the American revolution in terms of its historiography and how it's typically seen in American public and social life, which is that the revolution shows heroism of patriots and was the response of “evil people trying to change the natural and moral reasoning of things.” I think this acknowledgment is accurate as that same glorification is also seen not only in academic spaces but in public life and interpretation as well. In contrast, the Whig party interpreted the revolution as an inevitable necessity required for the change of the colonies, rather than “defeating evil men.” (Scarlett).

Bailyn also acknowledges the role of religion and its link between politics in America and authority in London as a source of communication. Religious groups in America rather came together to force the church of England to their political advantage and rebel against discriminatory legislation (95). (Scarlett).

One point Bailyn makes, especially in this chapter, are the the misunderstandings and the different views of how the colonies were and should be run. Most of England didn't understand why the colonies had trouble adapting to these new implemented acts, as that is what was normal in Britain, and on paper, is what was normal in the colonies. The issue being, that in reality, due to the power the colonial assemblies held, and how hard it was to control so many people across such a large space. -Emma Galvin

Another big reason as to why the British governmental system didn't work as well in the colonies, is due to the fact that governors had such short term limits. It was a few years to the assembly's 20 or so year terms. Also due to the fact that most of the governors came over from England and didn't know the ways of colonial life, making their job more challenging that intended.- Emma Galvin

The British colonists in America saw themselves as equal to their mainland counterparts, which made them believe that their systems of government were akin to Parliament and the crown. This appeared to be the case on the surface level, but there were many deep differences between the British government and the American governments that both parties at the time didn't fully understand. The examples include the more powerful royal governor on paper, but weak in reality, and the proportional congresses in the colonies instead of the house of commons seats. - Ewan H

When the colonial governments were doing worse or were different than the British government, the colonists reasoned that this was because the people in charge were morally corrupt. The colonists had widespread access to British political opposition writings that stated that the British government was faltering due to bad individuals in powerful places. The colonists ate this line of thinking up, and it ended up shaping their views on power and liberty to an extent. - Ewan H

18th century Britain was run in three separate legs of government that worked together to run the country. There was the crown, and under the king was his ministers and the church. There was the House of Lords, which was the aristocrats and rich members of society. Lastly, there was the House of Commons which was moreso a vote of the populous. These three legs weren't different in function like we know our government today, but they balanced each other in the same functions. - Ewan H

The British Government was mostly stable due to the way it managed elections and controlled houses in the House of Commons. This was done through patronage (promising lucrative opportunities in exchange for cooperation), a limited voting population, and representatives who remain susceptible to pressure from the government over the wishes of their constituents. These were all conditions absent in British America (Guy)

Bailyn comments on how the Americans want to copy the British government and consequently caused political opposition in the British government. The British government was more stable and thus the Colonial governments were attempting to replicate an already successful government. This however did not end up working as well and led to more problems. (Annie Feck)

One key point was that almost everyone who attempted to influence English politics to the advantage of a particular group found it necessary to work through professional brokers or lawyers in England to gain influence. Commercial connections between merchants in England and the colonies were just as effective and viable in politics as in trade. One key difference between Britain and the colonies was the nature of leadership. Americans assumed that political leadership was only one of several expressions of leadership within a society. (Suzanne Ferraro).

The colonial governments in the eighteenth century were weak, corrupt and chaotic for the most part. In New York, patronage, stacking the legislature with supportes, by the leaders was the only way to bring peace to the government. When the Delanceys came to power they tried to maintain peace by being neutral and working with Britain. In Pennsylvania, there were constant parties (even weak or small) that would resist and cause chaos within the government that made it difficult to govern. In North Carolina, royal government leaders would avoid conflict by just convening legislative business when the most difficult members were not available. I found the different strategies used by colonial leaders to keep the peace to be interesting. (Connor Hanmer)

If we are considering the history of politics in the colonies and early America, we need to consider that that history is one of extreme factionalism. (Ezra C.)

England is described as standing alone in an Old World that was precariously balanced on a constitution that did not fully extend to America, leading to a missing authoritarian power. (Scarlett).