I'm reading "The True History of the American Revolution" by Sydney George Fraser.  It's available online for free, although I have a paper copy because I'm old-fashioned.  He is of the opinion that the British government was reasonable in its handling of its American colonies, and that the patriot party, as he calls them, were disingenuous in their professions of loyalty leading up to the Declaration of Independence.  While these things are true to a large extent, it is interesting how he fails to see, even in his own writing, that the Americans were already a distinct people.  The transplanted Englishmen who settled here were out of step with their fellows, and time had made the ties to the home country even more tenuous.

He lays a lot of the blame for failing to suppress the revolution on the Whigs and Wlliam Howe, who was a Whig himself.  Part of his overarching theme is that the Whigs, being generally tolerant of American independence in theory, and being out of power, were recalcitrant in prosecuting the war.  There is a lot of truth in that, because some of Howe's actions were certainly questionable.  He seems to be of the opinion that the Whigs were willing to let the colonies go their own way not only because they thought that inevitable, but also because it would grease their way back into power.  How little things have changed.

Incidentally, despite Fraser's obvious admiration for Henry Clinton and the repressive manner in which he waged the war, the backlash from such an approach is obvious even from this remove, which makes the Whig policy of poking at the rebellion in a conciliatory manner look more intelligent than at first glance.  The Tory use of Indians as a punitive weapon makes the later conflicts with them more understandable at least. 

It is also fascinating to identify the author's biases, which at least are original.