Masters Theses

Date of Award

6-1982

Degree Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Arts

Major

History

Major Professor

Milton M. Klein

Committee Members

W. Bruce Wheeler, John Bohstedt

Abstract

The dramatic confrontation between King George III and United States Ambassador John Adams after the Revolution draws attention to one of the great ironies in the writing of American history: we have said many things about the monarch, but we never knew him.

The function of King George III in American historiography has been both obvious and subtle. Since he stood against the Revolution, he has been used to heighten the effect of whatever "good" things historians have felt were being accomplished by the struggle. For the Whig and Neo-Whig historians, George III was an opponent of liberty. For the Imperial School he was one cog in a very large imperial wheel. For the Progressive historians he epitomized an obstacle to reform. Lastly, for the historians of the so-called "New Departures," the King was a dyed-in-the-wool Whig, a military meddler and a focus for conspiratorial suspicion. Those things are obvious.

The King's more subtle function, however, has been to clearly mirror some of the more personal historical values and purposes held by the historians themselves. For patriotic historians Bancroft, Fiske and Morgan, the monarch mirrors their concern with the providential spread of republican values, the containment of political corruption, and the discovery of an "American" principle in a world of conflicting ideals. Diminishing, defending or condemning George III in turn, Imperial historians Andrews, Gipson and Kammen have evidenced their interest in Anglo-American harmony, creating empathy for the British cause and finding credibility in governmental officials. Although George III has not uniformly mirrored the accepted unifying themes of the Progressive School--economic and class conflict--he has accurately reflected their individual approach to the shared value of social reform: the monarchical mirror in the histories of Becker, Beard and Jensen has provided insight into those historians' concern for comforting and changing "Mr. Everyman," for recognizing the existence of economic self-interest in human arrangements, and for appreciating the complexities of life behind human triumph and failure. Finally, for Palmer Shy and Bailyn (each of whom selected his own "New Departure" from an older methodology to improve on what they all felt were deficiencies in the Progressive School interpretation), King George III mirrors their endorsement of the perspective gained from comparative history, from considering the impact of the military in great human events, and from properly appreciating the causative power of ideology.

Behind each of these personal reflections can be detected some-thing deeper still: the shifting moods of the American public over the past one hundred fifty years, and their painful inability to adopt an objective view of George III, himself. The man we have portrayed is not King George III, although we may have thought he was. What American historians have written about King George III has been the product of our need and the mirror of our common aspirations.

When first we come to the American historiography of King George III, what we expect to see is something resembling a colorfully detailed portrait, or series of portraits, of a man we never knew; but this is an illusion. The image that we find where we thought the monarch ought to be amazes us. Instead of a royal portrait of George III, we have created a reflection of ourselves.

Download
Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Share

COinS