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.
