Imperialism is the Violation of Free Markets: Colonialism is the Disruption of Individual Political Liberty

Although colonialism and imperialism existed in the ancient world, the modern political paradigm of imperialist colonialism was sired primarily by the British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese.

Correspondingly, the modern paradigm of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism arose in North America in the mid-1700s.

The oppression against which the Americans rebelled manifested the essential imperialist and colonial traits of violating the free market. The colonies were abused inasmuch as they were not allowed to participate in a free market. British regulations dictated which goods they could, and could not, buy. The rebellion consisted in part of smuggling.

The English rules dictated, e.g., that the colonists could purchase only tea from Britain, not from other countries, and that the colonists must sell certain goods only to England and only at the prices dictated by the English.

This violation of free market principles constituted an abuse of human rights by the British, as Allan Millett and Peter Maslowski write:

The Revolution began in 1765, not 1775. The events of 1765–1775 marked the first phase in a colonial war of national liberation. Only a handful of colonists advocated outright independence in 1765, but they vigorously championed their cause and slowly gained adherents over the next decade. During this initial stage colonial leaders organized themselves politically while subverting the established government’s authority through terrorism and propaganda. The Stamp Act Congress, followed by the two Continental Congresses, reflected the emergence of a national political organization.

Imperialist oppression, and colonialist oppression, operate by violating the free market. Colonies are held in poverty, and denied fair prices for their products and raw materials, by keeping them from offering their products in an unregulated market.

The North American colonies were regulated by the British about what they could buy, what they could sell, to whom they could sell, and from whom they could buy.

Key actions in the early phases of the revolution were economic actions: smuggling, boycotting, and the Boston Tea Party. Millett and Maslowski continue:

At the local level the Sons of Liberty evolved into a network of committees of correspondence and of safety. These extralegal bodies coordinated the opposition against Parliament, prevented the Revolutionary movement from degenerating into anarchy, and intimidated individuals who supported England. Radical leaders also organized riots against important symbols of British rule. Mob actions were not spontaneous but instead represented purposeful violence by what were, in essence, urban volunteer militia units. Supplementing the violence was a propaganda campaign portraying every English action in the darkest hues.

The American Revolution featured ideological freedoms like those of press, speech, and religion. It also featured economic freedoms, like deregulation and significant reduction in taxation.

These two sets of freedoms are so closely intertwined that they can’t be thoroughly separated. Various individual specific liberties are organically related.

Imposed taxes are a violation of free speech. Economic regulations are a violation of the free press.

The American Revolution demonstrated the inseparable unity of various specific rights.

The Birth of Anti-Colonialism: America Launches Anti-Imperialism

Although the concepts of ‘anti-colonialism’ and ‘anti-imperialism’ can be traced back to the times when Roman soldiers occupied parts of Europe and parts of the Ancient Near East, the modern forms of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism began around 1750 in North America.

The thirteen colonies that rebelled against British imperialism had been oppressed by a colonial economic system which left them at a distinct disadvantage. The British military was well-funded: much of that funding had left the Parliament in London facing massive debts.

The cruel and inhumane treatment of the colonists was designed, in part, to extract wealth from North America to repay the British government’s debt. Parliament gave the excuse that the funding was used to protect the colonies, and that therefore the colonies should pay the debt.

The colonies, however, argued that they were capable of, and had largely provided, their own defense, e.g., in the French and Indian War (1754 to 1763). The had not requested, did not want, and did not need defense from the British military, and therefore were loath to pay for it.

The formidable British military was large, well-equipped, and skilled. Instead of defending the colonies, it was used to oppress the colonies.

The British navy had both ‘ships of the line,’ which were large and well-armed to directly encounter the enemy, and frigates, which were faster, and more maneuverable. The Americans, by contrast, only began to assemble a small navy after the Revolutionary War started in April 1775.

As one would expect in the case of oppressed colonies fighting for their liberty against imperialist exploitation, the Americans were in every material way outmatched, as historian Russell Weigley writes:

Washington’s was a generalship shaped by military poverty. When the British arrived by sea before New York in the summer preceding the Trenton raid, General William Howe brought against Washington’s defenders of the city 31,625 soldiers of all ranks, 24,464 of them effectives fit for duty when the fighting for the city commenced, well equipped, and well trained and disciplined in the arts of eighteenth-century war. Behind Howe’s soldiers stood a British fleet of ten ships of the line, twenty frigates, hundreds of transports, and 10,000 seamen, commanded by General Howe’s very capable brother, affording the British general the privilege of descending wherever he chose upon the American coast.

While materially outmatched, the Americans had more motivation than the British soldiers. The colonists were fighting for the liberty of the friends and families; the British were often merely fighting to obtain a week’s or a month’s pay.

Although the English had had authority over the colonies since the early 1600s, it was only in the mid-1700s that such authority was abusively enforced.

Whatever autonomy the colonies had enjoyed during the 1600s disappeared under the economic hegemony which the English imposed during the 1700s.

The British treated the colonists ruthlessly and brutally. This was a central cause of the bid for independence, as historians Allan Millett and Peter Maslowski write:

The series of events that led the British colonies from resistance to Parliamentary sovereignty in 1765 to outright rebellion in 1775 cannot be recapitulated here. But two points need to be made. First, the crisis represented a clash between a mature colonial society and a mother country anxious to assert parental authority. Britain had previously never exercised much direct control over the colonies. Prospering under the “salutary neglect,” the colonies enjoyed de facto independence and developed a remarkable degree of self-reliance. Colonial aspirations thus collided with England’s desire to enforce subordination and diminish colonial autonomy.

America is paradigmatic for the ideologies of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism. The “Spirit of ‘76” led to the independence of Cuba and the Philippines from Spain, and led to the Monroe Doctrine’s defense of Central and South America against European colonizers.

Several elements of the American paradigm are worth noting: anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism arose with an eye toward establishing a strong national economy and vigorous individual political liberty. The political freedom of the individual was a treasured goal of the American independence movement.

The French Revolution (1789 to 1799), which was partially inspired by the American Revolution and which followed it only a few years later, took the opposite approach to the American paradigm: the French Revolution ran roughshod over the individual and sought a uniform collectivism.

Individual political freedom spills over into economic freedom. British taxes and regulations gave way to a free market. The French Revolution failed where the American Revolution succeeded because it neglected to honor the political liberty of the individual.

Colonies which look to the French Revolution as a model for independence often find themselves under more, not less, oppression. More than 200 years later, successful independence movements still follow the American paradigm.