<Dd> Osgood brought a new sophistication to the study of colonial relations posing the question from an institutional perspective, of how the Atlantic was bridged . He was the first American historian to recognize the complexity of imperial structures, the experimental character of the empire, and the contradictions between theory and practice that gave rise, on both sides of the Atlantic, to inconsistencies and misunderstandings...It was American factors rather than imperial influences that in his view shaped the development of the colonies . Osgood's work still has value for professional historians interested in the nature of the colonies' place in the early British Empire, and their internal political development . </Dd> <P> Much of the historiography concerns the reasons the Americans revolted in the 1770s and successfully broke away . Since the 1960s the mainstream of historiography emphasizes the growth of American consciousness and nationalism, and its Republican value system but stood in opposition to the aristocratic viewpoint of British leaders . In the analysis of the coming of the Revolution, historians in recent decades have mostly used one of three approaches . The Atlantic history view places the American story in a broader context, including revolutions in France and Haiti . It tended to reintegrate the historiographies of the American Revolution and the British Empire . Second the "New social history" approach looks at community social structure to find cleavages that were magnified into colonial cleavages . Third is the ideological approach that centers on Republicanism in the United States . Republicanism dictated there would be no royalty or aristocracy or national church . It did allow for continuation of the British common law, which American lawyers and jurists understood and approved and used in their everyday practice . Historians have examined how the rising American legal profession adapted the British common law to incorporate republicanism by selective revision of legal customs and by introducing more choice for courts . </P> <P> The concept of a first and second British Empire was developed by historians in the late 19th century, and is a concept usually used by advanced scholars . Timothy H. Parsons argued in 2014, "there were several British empires that ended at different times and for different reasons". He focused on the Second . </P> <P> Ashley Jackson argued in 2013 that historians have even extended to a third and fourth empire: </P>

Changes in british colonial policy between 1650 and 1750