North's reputation among historians has swung back and forth. It reached its lowest point in the late nineteenth century, when he was depicted as a creature of the king and an incompetent who lost the American colonies. In the early twentieth century, a revisionism emphasised his strengths in administering the Treasury, handling the House of Commons, and in defending the Church of England. Historian Herbert Butterfield, however, argued that his indolence was a barrier to efficient crisis management; he neglected his role in supervising the entire war effort.