| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 112.1

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 285 words from this article are provided below; about 658 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 112.1 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Comparative/World

P. J. Marshall. The Making and Unmaking of Empires: Britain, India, and America c. 1750–1783. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005. Pp. vi, 398. $55.00.
Lord Charles Cornwallis was defeated in America in 1781 but he was victorious in India in 1792, statesmanlike in Ireland in 1800, and a peacemaker with France in 1802. Once again governor-general, he died in India in 1805. The geography and chronology of Cornwallis's imperial career make both of P. J. Marshall's points.	1
One: the American Revolution did not divide a "first" British empire from a "second," as Vincent T. Harlow famously contended. Rather, Marshall tells us, the growth of British authoritarianism, nationalism, and racism, that is, imperialism, during and because of the Seven Years' War, actually enlisted in the cause of empire Irish, Bengali, West Indian, and Canadian elites. Because they were embattled with alien majorities, most of the imperial elites pledged allegiance to the British monarchy and submitted to the Westminister Parliament after 1763. They continued to do so for generations to come. For most of the empire, the American Revolution was but another episode in the second hundred years' war with France, not a constitutional divide.	2
Two: successful American resistance to military government and parliamentary pretensions coincided with an equally successful extension of British rule in India by force and under parliamentary supervision. Marshall's combining and contrasting Indian and American experience of the British Empire destroys the hegemony of the American Revolution in imperial historiography. Simply put, the Tea Act of 1773, which had such dire consequences in Anglo-American relations, was an unintended consequence of Parliament's supervision and support of the Indian segment of the British Empire.	. . .

There are about 658 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.