Annotated source list
Mary Beth Norton’s “a people and a nation”
This source shows what historians think of the revolution and what the historians thought the colonists thought about them, using primary evidence. Norton talks about a man named Grenville, someone who didn’t live in the colonies but believed in the right of the people to decide the legitimacy of the government. This source can be both a value and a limitation for the historians asking questions about the revolution. It is of a lot of value because it talks about how there wasn’t just people in the colonies thinking that they were being treated stupidly, and although this man was a loyalist, he believed in the peoples rights that John Locke pointed out. But, this is also a limitation because; this person wasn’t there so it may not be totally 100 percent accurate it isn’t a primary document, which means that she doesn’t have a bias but she cant account on something that she wasn’t there to witness. 

Daniel Leonard
Daniel Leonard argues that, the colonies being a part of Britain have natural rights, but only those that the mother country wishes to impose. He is an American loyalist that loves the mother country and can stand anything that they throw him, he acts like, and he wants others to do the same. Leonard says that only the colonies, or Britain can exist. Or else the two countries independently will become too powerful and there will be issues with balance in power and there may be a war. He believes strongly that the colonies should be under Britain and stay as British citizens. This has value because it shows a loyalist point of view that is rarely shown in history because of the strong patriotism in America. It also has limitations though and that is that it has no facts. Its purely interpretation and this is a problem because there is not any evidence to back his claims up, besides the fact that historians know the history.

Jonathan Boucher
Jonathan is a loyalist who says that without Britain and with out natural inequality, no matter how unfair it is, the world would become unstable and people would be unhappy. He says that it is vital for the nations to be together to create inequality among the people and keep society in its natural order. This is a valuable source because it is a primary source and shows the interpretation of another loyalist. It seems as if the loyalists were incredibly patient and orderly according to the document. It is also though, very short which means that it doesn’t offer very much information about Bouchers ideas. He definitely likes the idea of inequality though, which insinuates that he is either of the upper class or definitely a rationalist.