I read the book . I didn’t see it as an apology for the crown. The author actually uses a lot of the principal players actual correspondence and shows them warts and all.
From the rioting resulting from the British seizure of Hancock’s ship Liberty leading to the occupation of Boston in 1768, through the bravery of America’s first black war hero at Bunker Hill, Salem Poor, to the entry of George Washington on the world stage, the author does a nice job of bringing together events that are usually addressed separately in history classes and make no sense out of context.
It’s also an excellent summary of the events leading up to the revolution. I didn’t see that the author was taking the King’s side at all. It’s just a fact that the British wanted us to pay some of the debt they incurred for defending us in the French and Indian War.
It’s also a fact that the provincials preferred to govern themselves and resisted attempts by Parliament to exercise their authority.
I enjoyed the book quite a bit.
I don't doubt that at all.
But wasn't that the whole point they made at the time, that they weren't represented, and that the distance both increased the level of bureaucracy and delay for immediate issues they could not get the Crown to make decisions on in any kind of timely matter, and that they had no say in the decision making process?