<i>The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding</i>, by Eric Nelson
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and American Founding, by Eric Nelson. Cambridge, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014. 390 pp. $29.95 US (cloth). Eric Nelson's new book is a controversial analysis of American founding. Far from being a revolt against repeated injuries and usurpations of royal power as stated in Declaration of Independence, American rebellion was a revolt in favour of royal government, driven by conviction that parliament had usurped just prerogatives of crown. Those attuned to history of American Revolution will be struck by significance of this claim. While intellectual origins of Revolution have long been subject of controversy--from Lockean liberalism of Hartz, to turn of Bailyn, Pocock, and Wood, to neo-liberalism of Appleby--few have gone so far as to suggest as a progenitor of movement. There is much to commend Nelson's intellectual revisionism. What Nelson terms royalism was a significant strand of thought and framed how many colonists understood imperial crisis. They saw in George III an executive capable of offering them protection from tyranny of parliament and imagined that he would listen to their pleas for redress. The king's rejection of colonial petitions turned Americans toward republicanism in 1776. Nelson takes his argument into era of constitution to explain why, despite their disappointments in 1775, revolutionaries kept faith with a powerful executive and saw independent prerogative powers as a crucial check to legislative tyranny. The modern--albeit circumscribed--presidential veto can be interpreted as a reflection of patriot royalism. For Nelson, 1787 Constitution was not a counterrevolution against radicalism of 1775-76; but nor was it a radical experiment in popular sovereignty. It was product of ideological consistency and inherent of Revolution: the Constitution ... upheld spirit of '75 (p. 185). The book's greatest achievement is to counter triumphalist reading of revolutionary values that have come to be described as republican synthesis. In Nelson's interpretation, revolutionary Americans were not as radical as we once thought. They wanted to turn back clock on British constitution and, far from being harbingers of modern age, were profoundly at odds with constitutional evolutions in eighteenth-century Britain. He reminds us that American Revolution was not first of modern revolutions but last of early modern revolutions. But Nelson stops short of endorsing conservative revolution theory favoured by those on modern American right and contextualizes revolutionary ideology as very much a product of its time and place. In entirely reconstructing our history of origins of Revolution, however, there are issues with this book. Nelson states that patriot was not coterminous with American Revolution as a whole (p. 9) and that he is only describing one strand of thought. One gets sense that this statement is a reaction to criticisms Nelson received in a William and Mary Quarterly roundtable in 2011 than it is a genuine statement of his reservations. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».