would you have joined the american revolution essay

Home — Essay Samples — History — History of the United States — American Revolution

Essays on American Revolution

The albany plan, the thirteen colonies, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Common Sense by Thomas Paine

How and why the american revolution started, overview of the events of the american revolution, the effects of the american revolution, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The History of American Revolution - Timeline, Facts & Causes

The major aspects and key achievements during the american revolution, coming of the american revolution: boston tea party, american revolution and relationship between americans and british, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

How Did The War Between Britain and America Benefit Others

The american revolutionary war: the battles of lexington and concord, the role of women during the american revolution, revolutionary mothers by carol berkin: the role of founding mothers during the american revolution, differences between british and american soldiers in the american revolution, american revolution's negative impact on native american history, the role of boston tea party in the american revolution, establishment of american ideals during american revolution, the spies of the american revolution: nathan hale, the revolution of 1800, role and concequences of the articles of confederation, the second american revolution: its impact and legacy, the impact of valley forge on the american revolution , analysis of the main causes of the american revolution, war on the colonies: french, indian war and american revolution, a history of the enlightenment inspired revolutions, a study of major revolution events in america, the american revolution: how women and wives influenced husbands and friends, main minuses of the articles of confederation, insurgency and asymmetric warfare in the american revolutionary war  .

22 March 1765 – 14 January 1784

Thirteen Colonies (United States)

Dutch Republic, France, Loyalist, Spain, United Kingdom, United States, American colonies

The Boston Tea Party (1773), The Battles of Lexington and Concord (1775), The Declaration of Independence (1776), The Battle of Saratoga (1777), The Siege of Yorktown (1781)

George Washington: As the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, George Washington emerged as a central figure in the revolution. His strategic brilliance, perseverance, and moral character helped inspire and lead the troops through challenging times, ultimately leading to victory. Thomas Jefferson: Known for his eloquence and intellect, Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. His ideas and ideals, including the belief in natural rights and self-governance, greatly influenced the revolutionary cause. Benjamin Franklin: A polymath and influential statesman, Benjamin Franklin played a vital role in rallying support for the revolution. He traveled to Europe as a diplomat, securing crucial aid from France and other countries, and his scientific discoveries further enhanced his reputation. John Adams: A passionate advocate for independence, John Adams was instrumental in driving the revolutionary movement forward. He served as a diplomat, including as a representative to France and as the second President of the United States, and his contributions to shaping the nation were significant. Abigail Adams: Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams, was an influential figure in her own right. Her letters to her husband and other prominent figures provided valuable insights and perspectives on the revolution, and she became an early advocate for women's rights and equality.

In the 18th century, the thirteen American colonies were under British rule. Over time, tensions began to rise as the colonists developed a distinct identity and desired greater autonomy. Several key factors contributed to the buildup of resentment and ultimately led to the revolution. One crucial prerequisite was the concept of colonial self-government. The colonists enjoyed a degree of self-rule, which allowed them to develop their own institutions and local governments. However, as British policies, such as the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts, imposed new taxes and regulations on the colonies, the sense of self-government and individual liberties were threatened. Another significant factor was the Enlightenment era, which spread ideas of natural rights, individual freedoms, and representative government. Influential thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Paine advocated for the rights of the people and challenged the legitimacy of monarchy. The causes of the American Revolution were diverse and multifaceted. The colonists' grievances included taxation without representation, restrictions on trade, and the presence of British troops in the colonies. The Boston Massacre in 1770 and the Boston Tea Party in 1773 further heightened tensions and solidified the resolve for independence. Ultimately, the outbreak of armed conflict in 1775 at Lexington and Concord marked the beginning of the Revolutionary War. The Declaration of Independence, adopted on July 4, 1776, served as a powerful statement of the colonists' grievances and their determination to establish a free and sovereign nation. The historical context of the American Revolution reflects the culmination of colonial aspirations for self-government, Enlightenment ideas of individual rights, and a series of grievances against British rule.

Establishment of the United States as a sovereign nation; the creation of a new form of government based on democratic principles; adoption of the United States Constitution; redefinition of citizenship; abolition of feudalism; expansion of territorial boundaries, etc.

One of the major effects of the American Revolution was the establishment of a new form of government based on the principles of democracy and individual rights. The United States Constitution, born out of the revolution, served as a model for constitutional governments around the world. The idea of a government by the people and for the people spread, inspiring future revolutions and movements for independence. The revolution also challenged the existing colonial powers, particularly the British Empire, and set in motion a wave of decolonization throughout the world. The success of the American colonies in breaking free from British rule demonstrated that colonies could successfully achieve independence, fueling nationalist movements in other parts of the world and ultimately leading to the dissolution of empires. The American Revolution also had significant economic effects. It established the United States as a new economic power and opened up opportunities for trade and commerce. The revolution encouraged the development of industry and innovation, setting the stage for the industrial revolution that would follow. Furthermore, the American Revolution had a profound impact on the institution of slavery. While the revolution did not immediately abolish slavery, it planted the seeds of abolitionism and sparked debates on the issue of human rights and equality. Lastly, the American Revolution inspired and influenced subsequent revolutions and movements for independence, such as the French Revolution, which drew inspiration from the ideals of liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty championed by the American colonists.

Public opinion on the American Revolution varied greatly during the time period and continues to be interpreted differently today. In the 18th century, support for the revolution was not unanimous. Some colonists were loyal to the British Crown and opposed the revolutionary movement, while others actively supported the cause of independence. Public opinion shifted over time as events unfolded and more people became aware of the grievances and aspirations of the revolutionaries. Many colonists, especially those who felt oppressed by British policies, embraced the ideals of liberty, self-determination, and representation. They saw the revolution as a necessary step towards achieving these principles and securing their rights as free individuals. Others were motivated by economic factors, such as trade restrictions and taxation without representation, which fueled their support for independence. However, there were also segments of the population that remained loyal to Britain. Some believed in the benefits of British rule, such as protection and stability, while others feared the potential chaos and uncertainty that could result from a revolution. In modern times, public opinion on the American Revolution tends to be positive, with many viewing it as a pivotal moment in history that laid the foundation for democratic governance and individual freedoms. The ideals and principles that emerged from the revolution continue to shape American identity and influence public discourse on issues of liberty, equality, and self-governance.

1. The American Revolution lasted for eight years, from 1775 to 1783, making it one of the longest and most significant conflicts in American history. 2. The American Revolution had a profound impact on the world stage. It inspired other countries and movements seeking independence and democracy, such as the French Revolution that followed in 1789. 3. While often overlooked, women made significant contributions to the American Revolution. They served as spies, messengers, nurses, and even soldiers. Some notable examples include Deborah Sampson, who disguised herself as a man to join the Continental Army, and Abigail Adams, who advocated for women's rights.

The topic of the American Revolution holds immense importance for academic exploration and essay writing due to its profound impact on the world and the enduring legacy it left behind. Firstly, the American Revolution marked a pivotal moment in history where thirteen colonies fought for their independence from British rule, leading to the formation of the United States of America. It represents a significant event in the development of democracy and self-governance, serving as an inspiration for subsequent revolutions worldwide. Studying the American Revolution allows us to understand the principles and ideals that shaped the nation's foundation, such as liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness. It sheds light on the struggles and sacrifices made by individuals who fought for their rights and paved the way for the establishment of a democratic government. Furthermore, exploring this topic provides insights into the complexities of colonial society, the causes of the revolution, the role of key figures, and the social, economic, and political consequences of the conflict.

1. Bailyn, B. (1992). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Belknap Press. 2. Ellis, J. J. (2013). American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic. Vintage. 3. Ferling, J. E. (2015). Whirlwind: The American Revolution and the War That Won It. Bloomsbury Publishing. 4. Fischer, D. H. (2006). Washington's Crossing. Oxford University Press. 5. Maier, P. (1997). American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. Vintage. 6. Middlekauff, R. (2005). The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. Oxford University Press. 7. Middlekauff, R. (2007). The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. Oxford University Press. 8. Nash, G. B. (2006). The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America. Penguin Books. 9. Tuchman, B. W. (1989). The First Salute: A View of the American Revolution. Random House. 10. Wood, G. S. (1992). The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Vintage.

Relevant topics

• Industrial Revolution
• Manifest Destiny
• Pearl Harbor
• Civil Rights Movement
• Westward Expansion
• Great Depression
• Frederick Douglass

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

American Revolution: Reclaiming Rights and Powers Essay

The American Revolution was the war between the British Crown and American colonies, which led to the formation of the independent United States. The American Revolution was an attempt to rewrite the norms of a daily life and to break away from monarchial system that guided both personal and political behavior. The beginning of the American Revolution can be traced back to the 1763 when the British Government began to reassert control over its American colonies. During this period, the British government was fighting to protect its colonies from its French and Native enemies.

As a result, British Government Pursued policies of the kind embodied in the proclamation of the 1763 and the Quebec act that gave Quebec the right to many Indian lands claimed by the American colonists to ensure future domestic tranquility (Sidney 54). Besides the Quebec act, The British Government also began to institute new taxes and enforce old ones in order to pay for its wartime expenses.

Many colonists opposed the new policies implemented by the British government as they felt that the British government was taking away their right and powers. This paper seeks to discuss the key rights and powers that the American believed were being taken way by the British Crown. The paper will also provide the evidences the colonist had to support their beliefs.

The key rights and powers that Americans believed were being taken away by the British government

While reasserting control over its American colonies in 1763, British government came up with various policies. Many Americans felt that these policies were taking way their rights and powers. The key rights and powers that the Americans believed were being taken away include the rights and powers to own land, and the right to pay taxes.

The right and power to own land

When the British government came up with the proclamation of 1763, many colonists felt that the British government was violating their fundamental rights. In regards to the proclamation of the 1763, the British government forbade settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains in an attempt to secure peace with powerful Native Americans neighbors. However, Colonists reacted to this policy in different ways. In their views, the proclamation of 1763 was the first of many imperial insults.

Many colonists believed that the Britsh Crown was taking away their key rights and powers to own land. As a matter of fact, when the British Crown came up with the proclamation of 1763, many eastern and western farmers were frustrated. Colonists felt that such actions cut off opportunities for land speculators and western farmers, many of whom were already coveting or squatting on these lands. From the vantage point of the colonialists, the British government seemed to be sacrificing the ambitions of the colonialist in favor of the Indians.

The colonialist, therefore, felt that the Crown was taking away their right to possess lands and giving them to Indians. As a result, colonists responded to the proclamation of 1763 and other new policies of the British crown through the written word. Sidney (89) reveals that the colonists wrote petitions, public letters, broadsides, and sermons. According to Sidney (90), the colonist sang songs, wrote poetries, and otherwise voiced their displeasures with the British crown and their growing desire of independence. The struggles over lands predated the revolution by more than a century, and they shaped the participation of white settlers and Native Americans during the war.

The Burden Taxes

Besides, the proclamation of 1763, the colonists also disputed the new tax policies that the British government implemented. When the crown implemented the new taxes, Americans took to the streets to protest them, and for more than a decade, they signed petitions to claim their liberties as loyal English citizens. For instance, the colonial response to the stamp act and sugar act demonstrated the power of the masses.

Many Bostonians took to the street in august 1765 to protest the new tax on stamps used for legal documents. The angry protestors destroyed the personal property of the stamp distributor for the colony and then hanged and beheaded him in effigy. The outrage spread throughout the colonies, as indebted colonists were now facing greater fees after they were taken to court.

Colonists were expressing their dissatisfaction with the tax policies because they felt that the stamp act and the sugar act violated the rights of levying taxes conferred by charter solely upon the state legislature. Tandem to this, the colonist had no direct representation in the British parliament, thus, they felt that it was unfair for them to be subject taxation without representation (Sidney 130).

In fact, Americans believed that the new tax policies demonstrated that the British government was not acting precipitately. Colonists saw that the government had no intentions to subvert colonial liberties but merely to raise revenue in the most expeditious and least burdensome manner possible.

Colonist’s dissatisfaction with the new tax system could also be witnessed four months later after the Boston riot. Many frustrated colonists engaged in similar public protest in all of the other colonies. Protestors from Carolina also demonstrated their opposition to the tax policy as well as their solidarity with protestors from Boston.

Small farmers and herders in the colonial backcountry similarly voiced their frustrations through various act of civil unrest. Because of the protests, many stamp distributors resigned forcing the British Crown to repeal the tax act (Goldfield, et al. 80). This protest had apparently made the Colonists intention clear. Obviously, they believed that the Crown was taking away their legal rights by implementing new tax laws.

The general warrants

Besides the burden tax, the British Crown had also issued a general warrant that allowed the British to search homes and seize property without specific search warrants. Many colonists felt that the British government was violating their personal rights. Therefore, they decided to oppose this act by demonstrating on the streets.

Tandem to this, the quartering of the British troops in personal homes, without the consent of the owners, was also a source of dislike towards the British Crown. From these three perspectives, one can justify that the American Revolution was fundamentally conservative as many colonists were fighting to protect the rights and powers they had.

Conclusively, According to Sidney (234), the dispute was waged over the nature of the British constitution and the rights of subject; the goals of the colonist were to reform the British Empire, not to withdraw from it. In fact, the colonists did not see themselves as revolutionaries; they saw themselves as English citizens who were only defending their rights to own properties. Therefore, in response to British action, the colonist established a continental congress in 1774 to organize their resistance effort and coordinate their policies towards the crown (Goldfield, et al. 89).

Works Cited

Goldfield, David, et al . American Journey: A History of The United States. 2nd Ed. Vol. 2 Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Publishers, 2011. Print.

Sidney, Barclay. American Revolution . Charleston, SC: BiblioLife Publishers, 2009. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, May 3). American Revolution: Reclaiming Rights and Powers. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-american-revolution-essay/

"American Revolution: Reclaiming Rights and Powers." IvyPanda , 3 May 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/the-american-revolution-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'American Revolution: Reclaiming Rights and Powers'. 3 May.

IvyPanda . 2022. "American Revolution: Reclaiming Rights and Powers." May 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-american-revolution-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "American Revolution: Reclaiming Rights and Powers." May 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-american-revolution-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "American Revolution: Reclaiming Rights and Powers." May 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-american-revolution-essay/.

• What Does It Mean: SMCO, W000 in Oracle
• "The Yellow Wallpaper" and The Laugh of the Medusa
• Literature Analysis of Faulkner Journeys
• Women Status after the American Revolution
• American Revolution of 1774
• Slavery and the Abolition of Slave Trade
• the Principle of Term Limits for Members of Congress
• Confederation Articles and 1787 Constitution

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Revolutionary War

By: History.com Editors

Updated: August 11, 2023 | Original: October 29, 2009

The Revolutionary War (1775-83), also known as the American Revolution, arose from growing tensions between residents of Great Britain’s 13 North American colonies and the colonial government, which represented the British crown.

Skirmishes between British troops and colonial militiamen in Lexington and Concord in April 1775 kicked off the armed conflict, and by the following summer, the rebels were waging a full-scale war for their independence.

France entered the American Revolution on the side of the colonists in 1778, turning what had essentially been a civil war into an international conflict. After French assistance helped the Continental Army force the British surrender at Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781, the Americans had effectively won their independence, though fighting did not formally end until 1783.

Causes of the Revolutionary War

For more than a decade before the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775, tensions had been building between colonists and the British authorities.

The French and Indian War , or Seven Years’ War (1756-1763), brought new territories under the power of the crown, but the expensive conflict lead to new and unpopular taxes. Attempts by the British government to raise revenue by taxing the colonies (notably the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townshend Acts of 1767 and the Tea Act of 1773) met with heated protest among many colonists, who resented their lack of representation in Parliament and demanded the same rights as other British subjects. 

Colonial resistance led to violence in 1770, when British soldiers opened fire on a mob of colonists, killing five men in what was known as the Boston Massacre . After December 1773, when a band of Bostonians altered their appearance to hide their identity boarded British ships and dumped 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor during the Boston Tea Party , an outraged Parliament passed a series of measures (known as the Intolerable, or Coercive Acts ) designed to reassert imperial authority in Massachusetts .

Did you know? Now most famous as a traitor to the American cause, General Benedict Arnold began the Revolutionary War as one of its earliest heroes, helping lead rebel forces in the capture of Fort Ticonderoga in May 1775.

In response, a group of colonial delegates (including George Washington of Virginia , John and Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, Patrick Henry of Virginia and John Jay of New York ) met in Philadelphia in September 1774 to give voice to their grievances against the British crown. This First Continental Congress did not go so far as to demand independence from Britain, but it denounced taxation without representation, as well as the maintenance of the British army in the colonies without their consent. It issued a declaration of the rights due every citizen, including life, liberty, property, assembly and trial by jury. The Continental Congress voted to meet again in May 1775 to consider further action, but by that time violence had already broken out. 

On the night of April 18, 1775, hundreds of British troops marched from Boston to nearby Concord, Massachusetts in order to seize an arms cache. Paul Revere and other riders sounded the alarm, and colonial militiamen began mobilizing to intercept the Redcoats. On April 19, local militiamen clashed with British soldiers in the Battles of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts, marking the “shot heard round the world” that signified the start of the Revolutionary War. 

HISTORY Vault: The Revolution

From the roots of the rebellion to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, explore this pivotal era in American history through sweeping cinematic recreations.

Declaring Independence (1775-76)

When the Second Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia, delegates—including new additions Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson —voted to form a Continental Army, with Washington as its commander in chief. On June 17, in the Revolution’s first major battle, colonial forces inflicted heavy casualties on the British regiment of General William Howe at Breed’s Hill in Boston. The engagement, known as the Battle of Bunker Hill , ended in British victory, but lent encouragement to the revolutionary cause. 

Throughout that fall and winter, Washington’s forces struggled to keep the British contained in Boston, but artillery captured at Fort Ticonderoga in New York helped shift the balance of that struggle in late winter. The British evacuated the city in March 1776, with Howe and his men retreating to Canada to prepare a major invasion of New York.

By June 1776, with the Revolutionary War in full swing, a growing majority of the colonists had come to favor independence from Britain. On July 4 , the Continental Congress voted to adopt the Declaration of Independence , drafted by a five-man committee including Franklin and John Adams but written mainly by Jefferson. That same month, determined to crush the rebellion, the British government sent a large fleet, along with more than 34,000 troops to New York. In August, Howe’s Redcoats routed the Continental Army on Long Island; Washington was forced to evacuate his troops from New York City by September. Pushed across the Delaware River , Washington fought back with a surprise attack in Trenton, New Jersey , on Christmas night and won another victory at Princeton to revive the rebels’ flagging hopes before making winter quarters at Morristown.

Saratoga: Revolutionary War Turning Point (1777-78)

British strategy in 1777 involved two main prongs of attack aimed at separating New England (where the rebellion enjoyed the most popular support) from the other colonies. To that end, General John Burgoyne’s army marched south from Canada toward a planned meeting with Howe’s forces on the Hudson River . Burgoyne’s men dealt a devastating loss to the Americans in July by retaking Fort Ticonderoga, while Howe decided to move his troops southward from New York to confront Washington’s army near the Chesapeake Bay. The British defeated the Americans at Brandywine Creek, Pennsylvania , on September 11 and entered Philadelphia on September 25. Washington rebounded to strike Germantown in early October before withdrawing to winter quarters near Valley Forge .

Howe’s move had left Burgoyne’s army exposed near Saratoga, New York, and the British suffered the consequences of this on September 19, when an American force under General Horatio Gates defeated them at Freeman’s Farm in the first Battle of Saratoga . After suffering another defeat on October 7 at Bemis Heights (the Second Battle of Saratoga), Burgoyne surrendered his remaining forces on October 17. The American victory Saratoga would prove to be a turning point of the American Revolution, as it prompted France (which had been secretly aiding the rebels since 1776) to enter the war openly on the American side, though it would not formally declare war on Great Britain until June 1778. The American Revolution, which had begun as a civil conflict between Britain and its colonies, had become a world war.

Stalemate in the North, Battle in the South (1778-81)

During the long, hard winter at Valley Forge, Washington’s troops benefited from the training and discipline of the Prussian military officer Baron Friedrich von Steuben (sent by the French) and the leadership of the French aristocrat Marquis de Lafayette . On June 28, 1778, as British forces under Sir Henry Clinton (who had replaced Howe as supreme commander) attempted to withdraw from Philadelphia to New York, Washington’s army attacked them near Monmouth, New Jersey. The battle effectively ended in a draw, as the Americans held their ground, but Clinton was able to get his army and supplies safely to New York. On July 8, a French fleet commanded by the Comte d’Estaing arrived off the Atlantic coast, ready to do battle with the British. A joint attack on the British at Newport, Rhode Island , in late July failed, and for the most part the war settled into a stalemate phase in the North.

The Americans suffered a number of setbacks from 1779 to 1781, including the defection of General Benedict Arnold to the British and the first serious mutinies within the Continental Army. In the South, the British occupied Georgia by early 1779 and captured Charleston, South Carolina in May 1780. British forces under Lord Charles Cornwallis then began an offensive in the region, crushing Gates’ American troops at Camden in mid-August, though the Americans scored a victory over Loyalist forces at King’s Mountain in early October. Nathanael Green replaced Gates as the American commander in the South that December. Under Green’s command, General Daniel Morgan scored a victory against a British force led by Colonel Banastre Tarleton at Cowpens, South Carolina, on January 17, 1781.

Revolutionary War Draws to a Close (1781-83)

By the fall of 1781, Greene’s American forces had managed to force Cornwallis and his men to withdraw to Virginia’s Yorktown peninsula, near where the York River empties into Chesapeake Bay. Supported by a French army commanded by General Jean Baptiste de Rochambeau, Washington moved against Yorktown with a total of around 14,000 soldiers, while a fleet of 36 French warships offshore prevented British reinforcement or evacuation. Trapped and overpowered, Cornwallis was forced to surrender his entire army on October 19. Claiming illness, the British general sent his deputy, Charles O’Hara, to surrender; after O’Hara approached Rochambeau to surrender his sword (the Frenchman deferred to Washington), Washington gave the nod to his own deputy, Benjamin Lincoln, who accepted it.

Though the movement for American independence effectively triumphed at the Battle of Yorktown , contemporary observers did not see that as the decisive victory yet. British forces remained stationed around Charleston, and the powerful main army still resided in New York. Though neither side would take decisive action over the better part of the next two years, the British removal of their troops from Charleston and Savannah in late 1782 finally pointed to the end of the conflict. British and American negotiators in Paris signed preliminary peace terms in Paris late that November, and on September 3, 1783, Great Britain formally recognized the independence of the United States in the Treaty of Paris . At the same time, Britain signed separate peace treaties with France and Spain (which had entered the conflict in 1779), bringing the American Revolution to a close after eight long years.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Brewminate: A Bold Blend of News and Ideas

Patriots and Loyalists: Differing Opinions and Sides in the American Revolution

Share this:.

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Loyalists comprised 15-20% of the colonial population during the Revolutionary War.

Curated/Reviewed by Matthew A. McIntosh Public Historian Brewminate

The Patriots

“Patriots,” as they came to be known, were members of the 13 British colonies who rebelled against British control during the American Revolution, supporting instead the U.S. Continental Congress. These Patriots rejected the lack of representation of colonists in the British Parliament and the imposition of British taxes.

Following the French and Indian War (1753–1763), the colonies gained much greater independence due to salutary neglect, which was the British policy of allowing the colonies to violate strict trade restrictions to encourage economic growth. During the Revolutionary War, Patriots sought to gain formal acknowledgment of this policy through independence. Confident that independence lay ahead, Patriots alienated many fellow colonists by resorting to violence against tax collectors and pressuring others to declare a position in this conflict.

Prominent early Patriots include Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and George Washington. These men were the architects of the early Republic and the Constitution of the United States, and are counted among the Founding Fathers. Prior to 1775, many of these Patriots were active in the Sons of Liberty, an organization formed to protect the rights of the colonists from usurpation by the British government. They are best known for initiating the Boston Tea Party in 1773.

The Patriot rebellion was based on the political philosophy of republicanism as expressed by the leading public figures of the time, including the Founding Fathers and Thomas Paine, author of the popular pro-revolutionary pamphlet “Common Sense.” The philosophy of republicanism entailed a rejection of monarchy and aristocracy and emphasized civic virtue. Patriots were also known as American Whigs, Revolutionaries, Congress-Men, and Rebels. Though not all colonists supported violent rebellion, historians estimate that approximately 45 percent of the white population supported the Patriots’ cause or identified as Patriots; 15–20 percent favored the British Crown; and the remainder of the population chose not to take a vocal position in the conflict. Ultimately, Americans remained Loyalists or joined the Patriot cause based on which side they thought would best promote their interests. Prominent merchants in port cities and men with business or family ties to the elite class in Great Britain tended to remain loyal to the Crown, whereas Patriots were comprised largely of yeoman farmers. Nonetheless, people of all socioeconomic statuses populated both sides of the conflict.

The Loyalists

Loyalists, also known as Tories or Royalists, were American colonists who supported the British monarchy during the American Revolutionary War. During the war, British strategy relied heavily upon the misguided belief that the Loyalist community could be mobilized into Loyalist regiments. Expectations for support were never fully met. In all, about 50,000 Loyalists served as soldiers or militia in the British forces, 19,000 Loyalists were enrolled on a regular army status, and 15,000 Loyalist soldiers and militia came from the Loyalist stronghold of New York.

There was not unanimous support among members of the 13 colonies for the Patriot Siege of Boston (April 19, 1775–March 17, 1776). Widespread corruption among local authorities, many who later became Revolutionary leaders, alienated colonists from the Patriot cause. Colonists in New York, New Jersey, and parts of North and South Carolina were ambivalent about the revolution. Historians estimate that between 15 and 20 percent of European-American colonists supported the Crown; some historians estimate that as much as one third of the population was sympathetic to the British, if not vocally.

Americans either remained Loyalists or joined the Patriot cause based on which side they thought would best promote their interests. Prominent merchants in port cities and men with business or family ties to elites in Great Britain tended to favor the Loyalist cause. Nonetheless, people from all socioeconomic backgrounds could be found on both sides.

Loyalism was particularly strong in the Province of Quebec. Although some Canadians took up arms in support of the Patriots, the majority remained loyal to the King. Slaves also contributed to the Loyalist cause, swayed by the promise of freedom following the war. A total of 12,000 African Americans served with the British from 1775 to 1783. The Patriots mirrored this tactic by offering freedom to slaves serving in the Continental Army. Following the war, both sides often reneged on these promises of freedom.

By July 4, 1776, Patriots controlled most of the territory within the 13 colonies and had expelled all royal officials. Colonists who openly proclaimed their loyalty to the Crown were driven from their communities. Loyalists frequently went underground and covertly offered aid to the British. New York City and Long Island were the British military and political bases of operations in North America from 1776 to 1783 and maintained a large concentration of Loyalists, many of whom were refugees from other states.

In limited areas where the British had a strong military presence, Loyalists remained in power. For example, during early 1775 in the South Carolina backcountry, Loyalist recruitment outpaced that of the Patriots. Also, from 1779 to 1782, a Loyalist civilian government was re established in coastal Georgia.

When the Loyalist cause was defeated, however, many Loyalists fled to Britain, Canada, Nova Scotia, and other parts of the British Empire. The departure of royal officials, rich merchants, and landed gentry destroyed the hierarchical networks that thrived in the colonies. Key members of the elite families that owned and controlled much of the commerce and industry in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston left the United States, undermining the cohesion of the old upper class and transforming the social structure of the colonies. The Loyalist exodus also included Ohio Valley farmers who had relied on British military security against Pontiac ‘s armies. Recent non-Anglophone immigrants (especially Germans and Dutch), uncertain of their fate under the new regime, also fled. African American slaves and much of the Mohawk Nation joined the Loyalist migration north and northeast.

Slavery during the Revolution

African Americans—slave and free—served on both sides during the Revolutionary War. Many African Americans viewed the American Revolution as an opportunity to fight for their own liberty and freedom from slavery. The British recruited slaves belonging to Patriot masters and promised freedom to those who served.

In fact, Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation was the first mass emancipation of enslaved people in United States history. Lord Dunmore, Royal Governor of Virginia, issued a proclamation offering freedom to all slaves who would fight for the British during the Revolutionary War. Hundreds of slaves escaped to join Dunmore and the British Army. Five hundred such former slaves from Virginia formed Lord Dunmore’s Ethiopian Regiment, which is most likely the first black regiment to ever serve for the British crown. African Americans also served extensively on British vessels and were considered more willing and able than their British counterparts on the deck.

Other revolutionary leaders, however, were hesitant to utilize African Americans in their armed forces due to a fear that armed slaves would rise against them. For instance, in May 1775, the Massachusetts Committee of Safety stopped the enlistment of slaves in colonial armies. The action was then adopted by the Continental Congress when it took over Patriot forces to form the Continental Army. George Washington issued an order to recruiters in July 1775, ordering them not to enroll “any deserter from the Ministerial army, nor any stroller, negro or vagabond.” This order, however, was eventually reneged when manpower shortages forced the Continental Army to diversify their ranks.

George Washington lifted the ban on black enlistment in the Continental Army in January 1776, in response to a need to fill manpower shortages in America’s fledgling army and navy. Many African Americans, believing that the Patriot cause would one day result in an expansion of their own civil rights and even the abolition of slavery, had already joined militia regiments at the beginning of the war. Recruitment to the Continental Army following the lifted ban on black enlistment was equally positive, despite remaining concerns from officers, particularly in the South. Small all-black units were formed in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and many slaves were promised freedom for serving. African Americans piloted vessels, handled ammunition, and even served as pilots in various state navies. Some African Americans were captured from the Royal Navy and used by Patriots on their vessels. Another all-black unit came from Haiti with French forces. At least 5,000 black soldiers fought for the Revolutionary cause. Many former slaves who were promised freedom in exchange for their service in the Continental Army, however, were eventually returned to slavery.

Tens of thousands of slaves escaped during the war and joined British lines; others simply escaped on their own to freedom without fighting. Many who escaped were later enslaved again. This greatly disrupted plantation production during and after the war. When they withdrew their forces from Savannah and Charleston, the British also evacuated 10,000 slaves, now freedmen. Altogether, the British were estimated to have evacuated nearly 20,000 freedmen (including families) with other Loyalists and their troops at the end of the war. More than 3,000 freedmen were resettled in Nova Scotia while others were transported to the West Indies of the Caribbean islands. Others traveled to Great Britain. Many African Americans who left with Loyalists for Jamaica or St. Augustine after the war never gained their freedom.

American Indians and the Revolution

During the American Revolution, the newly proclaimed United States competed with the British for the allegiance of American Indian nations east of the Mississippi River. Most American Indians who joined the struggle sided with the British, based both on their trading relationships and hopes that colonial defeat would result in a halt to further colonial expansion onto American Indian land. Other native communities were divided over which side to support in the war and others wanted to remain neutral. The first American Indian community to sign a treaty with the new United States government was the Lenape. For the Iroquois Confederacy, based in New York, the American Revolution resulted in civil war. The only Iroquois tribes to ally with the colonials were the Oneida and Tuscarora.

Frontier warfare during the American Revolution was particularly brutal and numerous atrocities were committed by settlers and native tribes alike. Noncombatants suffered greatly during the war. Military expeditions on each side destroyed villages and food supplies to reduce the ability of people to fight, as in the frequent raids by both sides in the Mohawk Valley and western New York. The largest of these expeditions was the Sullivan Expedition of 1779, in which American colonial troops destroyed more than 40 Iroquois villages to neutralize Iroquois raids in upstate New York. The expedition failed to have the desired effect, as American Indian activity became even more determined.

The British made peace with the Americans in the Treaty of Paris (1783), through which they ceded vast American Indian territories to the United States without informing or consulting with the American Indians. The Northwest Indian War was led by American Indian tribes trying to repulse American colonists. The United States initially treated the American Indians, who had fought as allies with the British as a conquered people who had lost their lands. Although most members of the Iroquois tribes went to Canada with the Loyalists, others tried to stay in New York and western territories to maintain their lands. The state of New York made a separate treaty with Iroquois nations and put up for sale 5 million acres of land that had previously been their territories. The state established small reservations in western New York for the remnant peoples.

By P. Scott Corbett, et.al., provided by OpenStax College , published by Lumen Learning under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

Would You Have Joined the American Revolution?

It may seem obvious, but only 40-45% of colonists supported the cause. It's not as simple as it may appear!

Similar Shows

Beyond Barbados: The Carolina Connection

Generation 9/11

Crossing Overtown

Grandpa's War Story Goes Viral

Trezoros: The Lost Jews of Kastoria

Ken Burns UNUM

Julius Caesar: The Making of a Dictator

Without Precedent: The Supreme Life of Rosalie Abella

How Saba Kept Singing

Groundbreakers

Weta passport.

Stream tens of thousands of hours of your PBS and local favorites with WETA Passport whenever and wherever you want. Catch up on a single episode or binge-watch full seasons before they air on TV.

• Get WETA Passport

Get the Latest from WETA

Background Essay: Paths to Freedom: African Americans and the Revolutionary War

How did African Americans participate in the Revolutionary War? How did their actions reflect a desire to enjoy their natural rights?

Written by: The Bill of Rights Institute

The resistance against Great Britain and the Revolutionary War inspired American colonists to think about their natural and constitutional rights. The language and principles of liberty, equality, and self-governance led White and Black Americans to question the institution of slavery and to challenge it more directly. Their diverse efforts led to the largest emancipation in world history at that time and freed an estimated 100,000 enslaved people.

Some colonists acknowledged the moral wrong of slavery while protesting British violations of their rights in the 1760s and 1770s. Pamphleteer James Otis wrote that, “The Colonists are by the law of nature free born, as indeed all men are, white or black.”  Pennsylvanian Benjamin Rush wrote, “It would be useless for us to denounce the servitude to which the Parliament of Great Britain wishes to reduce us, while we continue to keep our fellow creatures in slavery just because their color is different from ours.” While some colonists addressed the contradiction of slavery and freedom, Black Americans challenged the institution.

Enslaved persons appealed to revolutionary ideals to argue for their natural rights. In 1773, four enslaved persons in Massachusetts petitioned the legislature for their freedom “which, as men, we have a natural right to.” The following year, a group of enslaved men presented a freedom petition claiming their natural rights and right to consent. “We have in common with all other men a natural right to our freedom without being deprived of them by our fellow men.” The legislature did not yet act upon the petitions, but Black Americans continued to petition for their freedom during the war as did Nero Brewster and 19 other enslaved individuals in New Hampshire in 1779.

Once the Revolutionary War began in 1775 at Lexington and Concord, free and enslaved Blacks joined both the patriot and British sides. Several Black patriots fought bravely at the Battle of Bunker Hill alongside White soldiers, but General George Washington forbade their service in the Continental Army that fall. However, dire manpower needs caused Washington and Congress soon to reverse that policy. The differing states had varied recruiting policies during the war: only South Carolina and Georgia prevented all Blacks from serving.

Many Black Americans–both free and enslaved–fought on behalf of the Patriot cause. Pictured here is a Black Patriot soldier from the 1st Rhode Island Regiment.

DeVerger, Jean-Baptiste-Antoine. American Soldiers at the Siege of Yorktown. 1781. Drawing. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_Revolutionary_War#/media/File:Soldier_in_the_Continental_Army_from_1st_Rhode_Island_Regiment.jpg

A total of 5,000 free and enslaved Blacks fought for the patriot side throughout the war. They fought in mostly integrated units, though some fought courageously in all-Black units such as the renowned First Rhode Island Regiment. Most of the enslaved African American soldiers were freed as a result of their service. During the war, many other enslaved persons simply walked off farms and did not return. At other times, enslaved veterans such as Felix Cuff resisted in his master’s attempt to re-enslave him and engaged in a shootout until the town of Waltham, Massachusetts declared him free.

The British consistently encouraged enslaved persons to escape to support the British war effort and disrupt the American cause rather than out of a sincere desire for Black freedom. In early 1775, Virginia royal governor, Lord Dunmore, threatened to “declare freedom to the slaves” before fleeing to British warships on the coast. By November 1775, Dunmore issued a proclamation promising freedom to any slave that fought for the British and formed the all-Black Ethiopian Regiment, whose members wore a sash with the motto, “Liberty to Slaves.” In 1779, British commander-in-chief, General Henry Clinton, issued the Philipsburg Proclamation offering freedom to all enslaved persons who simply fled to British lines. While the exact number of enslaved persons who ran to the British continues to be debated, more than 15,000 are estimated to have answered the offer in the proclamations.

Royal governor of Virginia Lord Dunmore released a proclamation that promised freedom to any slaves who would join the British cause. “Dunmore’s Proclamation” led to thousands of slaves escaping and fleeing to British lines.

Reynolds, Joshua. John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore. 1765. Painting. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murray,_4th_Earl_of_Dunmore#/media/File:Sir_Joshua_Reynolds_-_John_Murray,_4th_Earl_of_Dunmore_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

During the war, General Washington’s aides, John Laurens and his friend Alexander Hamilton, developed an emancipation plan. In 1779, Congress endorsed their plan to raise a contingent of 3,000 enslaved men in South Carolina and Georgia who would be granted their freedom in exchange for military service. The legislatures of those two southern states rejected the scheme because of their opposition to emancipation and to arming enslaved persons.

Whether they chose to support the patriots or the British, African Americans performed a wide variety of important roles. They served as soldiers, sailors, pilots, guides, spies, seamstresses, wagon drivers, and manual laborers for both sides throughout the war. Therefore, they made a significant contribution to both sides during the Revolutionary War.

Most importantly, thousands of enslaved persons liberated themselves from the barbarities and injustice of slavery in search of rights to liberty, equality, and consent. The act of self-liberation occurred throughout the colonies. In 1783, approximately 14,000 Blacks left with the British as they evacuated from New York and other major cities at the conclusion of the war. The freed people settled in Nova Scotia, Canada, England, Bermuda, the Caribbean, and Africa.

Tens of thousands of enslaved and free Black Americans challenged the institution of slavery in many ways during the Revolutionary War including running away, serving in the militaries of the belligerents, and petitioning for their freedom. Guided by the aspirational ideals of the American Revolution, they achieved their freedom but faced various forms of racial discrimination in the United States and abroad. In the new American republic, the movement for emancipation would continue to expand, while slavery would paradoxically grow and spread.

Related Content

John Adams and the Boston Massacre Trial

This lesson will help students understand the virtue of justice in order to apply justice in their own lives.

The Global Impact of the American Revolution DBQ

This Lesson can be used at the beginning of Chapter 4 to reinforce and review the key events of the American Revolution covered in Chapter 3. This activity will also introduce students to the effects the Revolution had on the world stage in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

Jonathan Den Hartog: The American Revolution & Republicanism | BRI Scholar Talks

In this week's Scholar Talk, BRI Senior Teaching Fellow Tony Williams sits down with Jonathan Den Hartog. In vivid detail, Den Hartog describes the republican ideals that influenced the American Revolution and Founding. He'll explain how the concept of republicanism helped shape American thinking about constitutional principles and civic virtues in framing the nation. What were the political and economic problems that arose after the Revolution, and how did the Federalists and Anti-Federalists strive to address them?

AP Prep Webinar #2: American Revolution, Tom Richey

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Course: US history   >   Unit 3

• The Seven Years' War: background and combatants
• The Seven Years' War: battles and legacy
• Seven Years' War: lesson overview
• Seven Years' War
• Pontiac's uprising
• Uproar over the Stamp Act
• The Townshend Acts and the committees of correspondence
• The Boston Massacre
• Prelude to revolution
• The Boston Tea Party
• The Intolerable Acts and the First Continental Congress
• Lexington and Concord
• The Second Continental Congress
• The Declaration of Independence

Women in the American Revolution

The american revolution.

• Women performed crucial tasks in the American Revolution, organizing fundraising drives, supplying the troops, working in the military camps, and tending to the wounded soldiers.
• One of the most common ways that women supported the war effort was by making homespun , home-made cloth that took on revolutionary symbolism after the colonies imposed boycotts on British goods, including textiles.
• Some women even acted as spies, and there is at least one documented case of a woman disguising herself as a man to fight in the war.

The Daughters of Liberty and homespun

Revolutionary women, what do you think.

• Robert J. Allison, The American Revolution: A Concise History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 11.
• John Ferling, Whirlwind: The American Revolution and the War that Won It (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2015), 251.
• Quoted in Ferling, Whirlwind, 251.
• Allison, The American Revolution, 22.
• Allison, The American Revolution, 54.
• For more on women in the American Revolution, see Carol Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers: Women in the Struggle for America’s Independence (New York: Vintage Books, 2006).

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Freedom and Slavery

While revolutionaries fought for freedom from British tyranny and oppression during the American Revolution, this war did not guarantee freedom for all. By the start of the American Revolution, slavery was legal and actively practiced in all Thirteen Colonies. As the conflict spread across the colonies, enslaved Black persons had to decide where to place their loyalties to ensure that they too could participate in this opportunity. Some formerly enslaved persons, such as Winsor Fry, joined the Continental Army hoping that the new nation would ensure liberty for all. Others, such as Harry Washington, ran from the men preaching about free will while actively keeping men, women, and children in servitude and joined the British. A few joined regiments like Col. Christopher Greene’s that allowed enslaved Black men to earn their freedom in exchange for their service to the Continental Army. Regardless, no matter their path, all hoped for freedom from bondage.

Stories of Freedom and Slavery

Former slave fighting as a patriot, and navigating life in a new nation

On the eve of Revolution, all thirteen rebelling colonies legally practiced slavery. Though there is no record of Winsor’s birth, it is likely that he was born enslaved. In 1773 prominent Rhode Islander Thomas Fry bequeathed “my Negro man named Windsor” to his youngest son Joseph, along with other property including several plots of land. Two years later however, Winsor joined the Continental Army as a free man.

View full story of Winsor Fry

Harry Washington

A slave of George Washington who found freedom fighting for the loyalists.

People on both sides of the American Revolution were fighting for their freedom. While the American revolutionaries fought for freedom from British rule, they denied personal freedom to thousands of enslaved Black people in the American colonies. The American Revolution provided an opportunity for enslaved people to fight for their own freedom, often making difficult choices to support patriots or the British based on which side offered a better chance at freedom. For Harry, supporting the British held the promise of liberty. He was one of thousands of enslaved people who took the British up on their promise of freedom.

View full story of Harry Washington

Christopher Greene

Leader of an integrated regiment that died on the battlefield

In February 1778 the Rhode Island Assembly announced that “every able-bodied negro, mulatto, or Indian man slave in this state” could enlist in the state line. They further stipulated that “every slave, so enlisting, shall upon his passing muster before Col. Christopher Greene, be immediately discharged from the service of his master or mistress; and be absolutely FREE, as though he had never been encumbered with any Kind of Servitude or Slavery.” This clause represented one of the few avenues to freedom for enslaved men during the era, but it was only open for a short time. The Assembly struck this clause after only four months, as the state’s slave owners petitioned for its repeal.

View full story of Christopher Greene

Slavery, Rights and the Meaning of the American Revolution

By Jack D. Warren, Jr. June 16, 2020

In the lead essay of the “1619 Project,” Nikole Hannah-Jones claims that the American Revolution was fought to perpetuate slavery and that the nation’s founding ideals were a fraud. She couldn’t be more wrong. The American Revolution secured the independence of the United States from Britain, established a republic, created our national identity and committed the new nation to ideals of liberty, equality, natural and civil rights, and responsible citizenship that have defined our history and will shape our future and that of the world.

Committing the new nation to the principle of natural rights—the idea that people possess certain rights inherent in the human condition—was the achievement on which the others depended. That commitment was the foundation for the long campaign to end slavery and to secure the rights of all Americans. The American Revolution didn’t perpetuate slavery. It set slavery on the path to extinction. The ideals of the American Revolution empower us to hunt down and destroy human trafficking and every other vestige of slavery in the world today. The American Revolution combined hope for a better world with the principles on which a better world will be built.

The injustice of slavery was a rising topic of discussion among some educated people in Britain and France, as well as in Britain’s American colonies, in the third quarter of the eighteenth century. There was, as yet, no abolition movement, nor a clear vision of what a world without slavery would be like. The uneasiness of the first self-conscious critics of slavery was shaped by the sense that enslaved Africans possessed rights that ought to be respected.

This idea—the idea that all people possess what we call natural rights—is so fundamental to us that we find it hard to imagine a time when it was not widely accepted. But in the third quarter of the eighteenth century this idea was just beginning to gain acceptance. The concept of rights, by contrast, was centuries old, and had begun as a way to articulate the limitations on the sovereign power of kings and aristocrats. Rights of that sort were won in struggles between monarchs and their subjects—at first between kings and aristocrats, and later, in England, between the king and his supporters on one side and ambitious, rising gentry and merchants on the other. Titled aristocrats forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, and in the seventeenth century, Parliament and its supporters contended successfully with Stuart monarchs to limit the power of the monarchy and establish the rights of Englishmen, as eighteenth-century British subjects and colonial British Americans used that phrase.

Those rights were regarded in the eighteenth century as the particular heritage of English people, and the English did not regard them as universal. They were the hard-won possession of the English, extended, sometimes grudgingly and with a kind of wary suspicion, to the king’s subjects in Wales, Scotland and his Protestant subjects in Ireland. That those rights extended to the king’s subjects in North America was the subject of disagreement. Reactionary Englishmen in the third quarter of the eighteenth century, like the famous Samuel Johnson, argued that colonists had surrendered the rights of Englishmen when they left England for the American colonies, and could not expect to enjoy the rights that Englishmen at home enjoyed. More generous Englishmen like Edmund Burke rejected Johnson’s argument and sided with the American Revolutionaries in their claim to possess the rights of Englishmen. Nearly all Englishmen agreed that foreigners, including Africans and their descendants, did not enjoy the rights of Englishmen, nor did most Africans enjoy the limited privileges and immunities they afforded to foreign Christians.

The idea that Africans, free or slave, possessed rights depended on a theory of natural rights—of rights inherent in the human condition rather than the possession of a particular people, won through their historical experience. The idea of natural rights had been building since the seventeenth century. It was shaped by a Dutch jurist, Hugo Grotius, and his German follower, Samuel Pufendorf, and given more complete formulation by a Swiss theorist, Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, who synthesized thinking on natural rights in The Principles of Natural Law, published in 1747. It quickly attracted a wide audience and was well known to thoughtful Americans like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The idea that all people possess certain fundamental rights seems obvious to us, because we live in a world in which the idea has wide assent, but it was, as late as 1770, a theoretical construct. No government acknowledged the existence of natural rights. The American Revolutionaries were the first to apply it to the construction of governments.

Principled opposition to slavery, which had previously been expressed by a few, mostly on religious grounds, grew with the development and spread of natural rights theory. Many well-read people in England, and well-read Americans like Benjamin Franklin, were growing uncomfortable with slavery in the last years before the American war. Indeed the controversy between the colonies and Britain that led to the Revolution, which was in some respects a great forensic controversy about rights, stimulated and accelerated thinking on both sides of the Atlantic about natural rights and fed the early development of the antislavery movement on both sides of the ocean.

It is not surprising that the people in England who were most uncomfortable with slavery tended to be vocal defenders of American rights and supporters of the American cause, even during our War for Independence against Britain. They did not see, as Hannah-Jones does, the Revolution as a movement fomented by slaveowners to defend their human property. They saw the Revolution as a principled defense of the rights of Englishmen to which Americans were entitled—this was Edmund Burke’s view—or they saw the Revolution as a truly radical movement based on the natural rights of all mankind. This was the view of the English radical Richard Price, a great friend and admirer of Benjamin Franklin.

Englishmen like Price who believed that governments should be based on natural rights were the exception in the 1770s. They were the avant-garde, not the mainstream. They were the avant-garde in America, too, before the beginning of the war between Britain and the colonies in 1775, but the war forced Americans to reconsider the nature of government authority and to embrace natural rights as the proper basis of government. This was a truly and deeply radical moment in world history. It changed what had been, up to that moment, a regional dispute about legal rights under English law into a revolution in favor of an entirely new theory of rights and consequently a wholly new foundation for government.

Since principled opposition to slavery rested on the idea of natural rights, it is not at all surprising that the first statute abolishing slavery ever written was adopted, not in Britain, but in what might justly be described, at that moment, as the most culturally diverse, philosophically sophisticated and forward-looking place in the western world: Pennsylvania. With a founding creed based on Quaker ideas of moral equality, tolerance, charity and non-violence, eighteenth-century Pennsylvania attracted settlers and religious refugees from several parts of western Europe—people from differing cultural and legal traditions. The idea of natural rights as the basis of government was accepted more readily there than anywhere else, and led logically to the Pennsylvania Statute for the Abolition of Slavery, which was adopted in 1780. Slavery was abolished by law in the states north of Pennsylvania during the Revolutionary generation and as a direct consequence of the Revolutionary appeal to universal natural rights.

Meanwhile thousands of African Americans served in the armed forces that won American independence. As many as nine thousand served in the Continental Army and Navy, in the militia, on privateering vessels and as teamsters or servants to officers. This was about four percent of the men who served in the armed forces, but their terms of service were typically much longer than that of whites. Thus, at any one time, black soldiers, sailors and support personnel probably accounted for between fifteen and twenty percent of the effective strength of the armed forces. They were particularly conspicuous during the latter stages of the war, when white recruitment slowed. Obviously none of these men, properly classed with our nation’s founders, fought to perpetuate slavery.

Hannah-Jones’ claim that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery” is not supported by the evidence. Seven months after the Times published this astonishing assertion, the editors changed it to read “ some of the colonists decided” as a half-hearted concession to criticism from historians. “In attempting to summarize and streamline,” Hannah-Jones acknowledged, “journalists can sometimes lose important context and nuance. I did that here.” But the difference between “the colonists” and “ some of the colonists” is not a matter of nuance or context. It’s a distinction between truth and falsehood.

In fact, both statements are false. No evidence has been advanced to support the claim that anyone supported independence because they feared for the future of their slave property. The editors nonetheless left unchanged Hannah-Jones’ sweeping assertion that “the founding fathers . . . believed that independence was required in order to ensure that slavery would continue.” Having acknowledged, grudgingly, that they went too far, Hannah-Jones and her editors, with the help of the Pulitzer Center, intend to introduce this fabrication into our schools. So much for nuance, context and journalistic integrity.

Hannah-Jones’ contention is based on the false belief that the British Empire—in which slavery was the basis of enormous wealth—was somehow less congenial to slavery than Revolutionary America. Both depended on slave labor, but an American slave owner who looked with concern at the earliest development of antislavery sentiment in England was surely as disturbed by the early development of antislavery sentiment in the revolutionary American states. Whether such anxious slave owners joined the patriot cause or remained loyal to the crown—and consequently to a theory of rights that excluded non-Englishmen, including their slaves—is not clear. It seems logical that any slave owners who were concerned by the earliest anti-slavery thought should have rejected the American Revolution and its basis in natural rights theory. But this is largely conjecture. Little evidence of such anxiety has been found.

In his defense of Hannah-Jones’ claim, her editor Jake Silverstein points to the November 1775 proclamation of Virginia’s last royal governor, Lord Dunmore, offering freedom to slaves who deserted their rebel masters and joined him in suppressing the rebellion. That proclamation, he writes, led fearful slave owners to embrace independence to separate from the British threat to the slave property. This argument will not bear scrutiny. By November 1775 the movement that ended with independence was already far advanced, and no one could have connected Dunmore’s proclamation to British antislavery sentiment. Dunmore owned slaves. His sole aim, as Americans understood perfectly well, was to cripple the productive capacity of the rebels by depriving them of agricultural labor, and to bring the rebellion to its knees by shattering the economy that supported it. That effort failed. It served chiefly to alienate fence-sitting slave owners who hoped to stay out of the war and alienate loyalist slave owners whose slaves fled to the British as readily as the slaves of patriots. That Dunmore and like-minded British leaders were not principled abolitionists is demonstrated by the fact that they sometimes aided loyalist planters in recovering their slaves.

Thousands of slaves fled their masters during the chaos of the war, and some of them ultimately secured their freedom by joining the exodus of loyalist refugees. Former slaves who lived out their lives in Canada found refuge in a corner of the British Empire wholly unsuited to slavery. But the suggestion that Britain or its empire were less complicit in the horrors of slavery than Britain’s former colonies and offered emancipated slaves a path to freedom, and Americans a road not taken in the tortured path to racial justice, is untenable. Slavery in the British Empire was just as horrific as in Britain’s former colonies, and the economics of enslavement and emancipation were similar. Enslaved people of the British West Indies made Britain wealthy, just as the enslaved people of the South made Americans wealthy. Absentee landlords of sugar plantations in Jamaica, Barbados and other British islands lavished their fortunes on English country estates, held seats in Parliament or controlled a contingent of those who did, and ensured that their interests were protected. They successfully resisted abolition for decades, just as slave owners resisted abolition in the United States.

The British did not abolish slavery in their empire earlier than the United States because they were more humane than Americans. The difference in timing was driven by the market. The power of the West Indian sugar interest declined precipitously along with the price of sugar in the 1820s, and the British Reform Act of 1832, which eliminated the rotten boroughs controlled by the West India Lobby, doomed their cause. Slavery was abolished in the empire in 1833—a remarkable achievement—though London gave its assent to labor laws that tied many former slaves to the land and limited emigration, substituting a life of harsh labor and peonage for slavery. Such laws, in various forms, limited opportunity and the enjoyment of fundamental rights for former slaves and their descendants in the British West Indies for more than a century. The scars of slavery are as pervasive in Barbados and Jamaica as they are in Mississippi.

In the United States, principled anti-slavery sentiment could not overcome the tobacco and rice planters’ dependence on slave labor and achieve the abolition of slavery in America during the Revolution or its aftermath, and this proved to be a tragedy of incalculable proportions that led to suffering and death for millions of African Americans for generations, and millions of white Americans in the Civil War. Despite growing repugnance for slavery, little effort was made to abolish slavery at a national level. Many Revolutionary leaders, whether slave owners like George Washington or James Madison or opponents of slavery like John Jay or Alexander Hamilton, believed that an attempt to end slavery by federal law would endanger the fragile union of the states. Benjamin Franklin was willing to risk that, and in his last public act, just two months before his death, he signed a petition asking Congress to abolish slavery in the United States.

Many of the others believed, or at least hoped, that the economy would outgrow slavery within a generation or two. Some thought that the abolition of the slave trade, ending the importation of more enslaved men and women from Africa and the Caribbean, would gradually suffocate the institution. This was wishful thinking that ignored the natural increase of slaves already in the country, but reliable quantitative information was scarce and men persuaded themselves that if no new slaves were brought into the United States, slavery would wither and die without political trauma. In any event, this half measure was the only restriction the wealthiest tobacco and rice planters would accept. It was to their advantage, because choking off the importation of new slaves would drive up the market value of their human property.

Washington and Madison both seem to have expected slavery to decline as the economy changed in the states where slaves were most numerous. Tobacco appeared to Washington and other observers like a staple crop without much future. Great fortunes were no longer built on tobacco. It exhausted the soil, and planters who grew it faced diminishing returns in a declining market. Washington abandoned tobacco for wheat, a crop for which slave labor was poorly suited. Other tobacco planters slid inexorably into debt (a fact apparently unfamiliar to Hannah-Jones, who wrote that the “dizzying profits” from slave labor led Thomas Jefferson and “the other founding fathers” to believe they could win a war with Britain). Demand for Carolina rice, much of which was shipped to the West Indies to feed the slaves on Britain’s sugar islands, was stable, but rice was restricted to tidewater lowlands and most of the marshy land suited to it was already in cultivation. Rice was wholly unsuited to the southern interior into which the population was moving. Hopeful men thought that new crops, new agricultural practices and commercial and industrial development would favor free labor and extinguish slavery without a struggle.

Persuaded, or at least hopeful, that the problem would resolve itself in time, and that slavery could be moved toward ultimate extinction by half measures, the Revolutionaries failed to imagine the horrors ahead. They did not imagine that cotton—a minor crop previously restricted, like rice, to a narrow coastal region—would race across the South and create a demand for enslaved people comparable only to the insatiable demand of the West Indian sugar plantations. Short-staple cotton suited to the vast southern interior was barely grown in the United States at the time of the Revolution. Picking the seeds out of it was too costly, even with slave labor, to make it profitable. The unexpected invention of a simple machine to remove the seeds made it profitable in bulk and doomed unborn generations to the brute labor of planting, cultivating and harvesting it. Growing demand for cheap textiles drove the mills of the industrial revolution. Producing cotton to feed those mills absorbed American lives like dry sand absorbs water and condemned African Americans to slavery and peonage that lasted until cotton production was mechanized in the third quarter of the twentieth century.

For all of the good the Revolutionaries did—securing our independence, creating the first modern republic, knitting together the fragile union and creating our national identity, and committing the new nation to ideals of liberty, equality, civil rights and citizenship based on the revolutionary implementation of the idea of natural rights—their failure to dismantle slavery will forever haunt their memory as it has stalked our history.

But it does not convict them of hypocrisy. Indeed, Hannah-Jones makes no effort to explain why a revolution she claims was founded on a desire to retain slave property should have, quite perversely, adopted a political philosophy of natural rights so utterly antithetical to slavery. That philosophy, after painful decades of political struggle and decades of human suffering, led to the abolition of slavery and to the drive to secure the personal liberty, legal equality and civil rights denied to African Americans. The revolutionary commitment to natural rights is, in the final analysis, the foundation upon which Hannah-Jones’ own outrage rests. She is the daughter, the granddaughter and great-granddaughter of black Americans denied their natural rights by people who embraced ideas wholly antithetical to the revolutionary ideal of universal natural rights—who perverted it into a theory of natural rights for a select few who tyrannized the many.

Thrown on the defensive by a theory of natural rights that challenged the foundations of the slave system, supporters of slavery in the second quarter of the nineteenth century resorted to pseudo-scientific arguments that blacks were not fully human, and therefore could be deprived of those rights that were the natural entitlement of those who were fully human. The rise of such thinking in America and around the world fostered the inhumanity of racial injustice and led to unspeakable horror in the twentieth century, including abominable crimes against individuals as well as acts of genocide perpetrated around the globe on a grotesque and immense scale. We have not yet crushed the last embers of this thought.

The American Revolution did not perpetuate racial hatred and oppression. It challenged a world that was profoundly unfree. The principle of natural rights asserted by the Revolution led ultimately to the overthrow of slavery and now challenges every form of oppression, exploitation, bigotry and injustice. The American Revolution was the most important moment in modern history, and its ideals are the still the last, best hope of our world, where too many are still denied their natural rights.

Above: American-born artist John Singleton Copley painted this portrait of an unidentified man in London about 1778. Unlike most eighteenth-century American and European portrayals of men and women of African descent, it captures the individuality of the sitter. Detroit Institute of Arts.

We encourage all our visitors to read Why the American Revolution Matters , our basic statement about the importance of the American Revolution. It outlines what every American should understand about the central event in American history. It will take you less than five minutes to read—and a few seconds to send the link to your friends, family, and colleagues so they can read it, too.

Read the companion essays responding to the 1619 project:  “the american revolution and the foundations free society” and “what’s wrong with ‘the idea of america’”.

• Newsletters

Site search

• Israel-Hamas war
• Home Planet
• 2024 election
• Supreme Court
• All explainers
• Future Perfect

Filed under:

3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake

Happy Fourth!

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: 3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake

This July 4, let's not mince words: American independence in 1776 was a monumental mistake. We should be mourning the fact that we left the United Kingdom, not cheering it.

Of course, evaluating the wisdom of the American Revolution means dealing with counterfactuals. As any historian would tell you, this is a messy business. We obviously can't be entirely sure how America would have fared if it had stayed in the British Empire longer, perhaps gaining independence a century or so later, along with Canada.

But I'm reasonably confident a world in which the revolution never happened would be better than the one we live in now, for three main reasons: Slavery would've been abolished earlier, American Indians would've faced rampant persecution but not the outright ethnic cleansing Andrew Jackson and other American leaders perpetrated, and America would have a parliamentary system of government that makes policymaking easier and lessens the risk of democratic collapse.

Abolition would have come faster without independence

The main reason the revolution was a mistake is that the British Empire, in all likelihood, would have abolished slavery earlier than the US did, and with less bloodshed.

Abolition in most of the British Empire occurred in 1834, following the passage of the Slavery Abolition Act . That left out India, but slavery was banned there, too, in 1843 . In England itself, slavery was illegal at least going back to 1772 . That's decades earlier than the United States.

This alone is enough to make the case against the revolution. Decades less slavery is a massive humanitarian gain that almost certainly dominates whatever gains came to the colonists from independence.

The main benefit of the revolution to colonists was that it gave more political power to America's white male minority. For the vast majority of the country — its women, slaves, American Indians — the difference between disenfranchisement in an independent America and disenfranchisement in a British-controlled colonial America was negligible. If anything, the latter would've been preferable, since at least women and minorities wouldn't be singled out for disenfranchisement. From the vantage point of most of the country, who cares if white men had to suffer through what everyone else did for a while longer, especially if them doing so meant slaves gained decades of free life?

It's true that had the US stayed, Britain would have had much more to gain from the continuance of slavery than it did without America. It controlled a number of dependencies with slave economies — notably Jamaica and other islands in the West Indies — but nothing on the scale of the American South. Adding that into the mix would've made abolition significantly more costly.

But the South's political influence within the British Empire would have been vastly smaller than its influence in the early American republic. For one thing, the South, like all other British dependencies, lacked representation in Parliament. The Southern states were colonies, and their interests were discounted by the British government accordingly. But the South was also simply smaller as a chunk of the British Empire's economy at the time than it was as a portion of America's. The British crown had less to lose from the abolition of slavery than white elites in an independent America did.

The revolutionaries understood this. Indeed, a desire to preserve slavery helped fuel Southern support for the war. In 1775, after the war had begun in Massachusetts, the Earl of Dunmore, then governor of Virginia, offered the slaves of rebels freedom if they came and fought for the British cause. Eric Herschthal , a PhD student in history at Columbia, notes that the proclamation united white Virginians behind the rebel effort. He quotes Philip Fithian, who was traveling through Virginia when the proclamation was made, saying, "The Inhabitants of this Colony are deeply alarmed at this infernal Scheme. It seems to quicken all in Revolution to overpower him at any Risk." Anger at Dunmore's emancipation ran so deep that Thomas Jefferson included it as a grievance in a draft of the Declaration of Independence. That's right: the declaration could've included "they're conscripting our slaves" as a reason for independence.

For white slaveholders in the South, Simon Schama writes in Rough Crossings , his history of black loyalism during the Revolution, the war was "a revolution, first and foremost, mobilized to protect slavery."

Slaves also understood that their odds of liberation were better under British rule than independence. Over the course of the war, about 100,000 African slaves escaped, died, or were killed, and tens of thousands enlisted in the British army, far more than joined the rebels. "Black Americans' quest for liberty was mostly tied to fighting for the British — the side in the War for Independence that offered them freedom," historian Gary Nash writes in The Forgotten Fifth , his history of African Americans in the revolution. At the end of the war, thousands who helped the British were evacuated to freedom in Nova Scotia, Jamaica, and England.

This is not to say the British were motivated by a desire to help slaves; of course they weren't. But American slaves chose a side in the revolution, the side of the crown. They were no fools. They knew that independence meant more power for the plantation class that had enslaved them and that a British victory offered far greater prospects for freedom.

Independence was bad for Native Americans

Starting with the Proclamation of 1763, the British colonial government placed firm limits on westward settlement in the United States. It wasn't motivated by an altruistic desire to keep American Indians from being subjugated or anything; it just wanted to avoid border conflicts.

But all the same, the policy enraged American settlers, who were appalled that the British would seem to side with Indians over white men. "The British government remained willing to conceive of Native Americans as subjects of the crown, similar to colonists," Ethan Schmidt writes in Native Americans in the American Revolution . "American colonists … refused to see Indians as fellow subjects. Instead, they viewed them as obstacles in the way of their dreams of land ownership and trading wealth." This view is reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which attacks King George III for backing "merciless Indian Savages."

American independence made the proclamation void here. It's not void in Canada — indeed, there the 1763 proclamation is viewed as a fundamental document providing rights to self-government to First Nations tribes. It's mentioned explicitly in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada's Bill of Rights), which protects "any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763" for all aboriginal people. Historian Colin Calloway writes in The Scratch of a Pen: 1763 and the Transformation of North America that the proclamation "still forms the basis for dealings between Canada's government and Canada's First Nations."

And, unsurprisingly, Canada didn't see Indian wars and removals as large and sweeping as occurred in the US . They still committed horrible, indefensible crimes. Canada, under British rule and after, brutally mistreated aboriginal people, not least through government-inflicted famines and the state's horrific seizure of children from their families so they could attend residential schools. But the country didn't experience a westward expansion as violent and deadly as that pursued by the US government and settlers. Absent the revolution, Britain probably would've moved into Indian lands. But fewer people would have died.

None of this is to minimize the extent of British and Canadian crimes against Natives. "It's a hard case to make because even though I do think Canada's treatment of Natives was better than the United States, it was still terrible," the Canadian essayist Jeet Heer tells me in an email (Heer has also written a great case against American independence ). "On the plus side for Canada: there were no outright genocides like the Trail of Tears (aside from the Beothuks of Newfoundland). The population statistics are telling: 1.4 million people of aboriginal descent in Canada as against 5.2 million in the USA. Given the fact that America is far more hospitable as an environment and has 10 times the non-aboriginal population, that's telling."

Independence also enabled acquisition of territory in the West through the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican-American War. That ensured that America's particularly rapacious brand of colonialism ensnared yet more native peoples. And while Mexico and France were no angels, what America brought was worse. Before the war, the Apache and Comanche were in frequent violent conflict with the Mexican government. But they were Mexican citizens. The US refused to make them American citizens for a century. And then, of course, it violently forced them into reservations, killing many in the process.

American Indians would have still, in all likelihood, faced violence and oppression absent American independence, just as First Nations people in Canada did. But American-scale ethnic cleansing wouldn't have occurred. And like America's slaves, American Indians knew this. Most tribes sided with the British or stayed neutral; only a small minority backed the rebels. Generally speaking, when a cause is opposed by the two most vulnerable groups in a society, it's probably a bad idea. So it is with the cause of American independence.

America would have a better system of government if we'd stuck with Britain

Honestly, I think earlier abolition alone is enough to make the case against the revolution, and it combined with less-horrible treatment of American Indians is more than enough. But it's worth taking a second to praise a less important but still significant consequence of the US sticking with Britain: we would've, in all likelihood, become a parliamentary democracy rather than a presidential one.

And parliamentary democracies are a lot, lot better than presidential ones. They're significantly less likely to collapse into dictatorship because they don't lead to irresolvable conflicts between, say, the president and the legislature. They lead to much less gridlock.

In the US, activists wanting to put a price on carbon emissions spent years trying to put together a coalition to make it happen, mobilizing sympathetic businesses and philanthropists and attempting to make bipartisan coalition — and they still failed to pass cap and trade, after millions of dollars and man hours. In the UK, the Conservative government decided it wanted a carbon tax. So there was a carbon tax , and the coal sector has taken a beating . Just like that. Passing big, necessary legislation — in this case, legislation that's literally necessary to save the planet — is a whole lot easier with parliaments than with presidential systems.

There are of course exceptions — you need only look at Theresa May’s years of struggle to put together a Brexit package that satisfies her party. But it’s notable that that fiasco began with a deviation from parliamentary government, when David Cameron decided to punt the question of leaving the European Union to the voters. It was the introduction of another unnecessary decisionmaking entity, very common in the veto point-heavy US system, that created the crisis in the first place.

This is no trivial matter. Efficient passage of legislation has huge humanitarian consequences. It makes measures of planetary importance, like carbon taxes, easier to get through; they still face political pushback, of course — Australia's tax got repealed, after all — but they can be enacted in the first place, which is far harder in the US system. And the efficiency of parliamentary systems enables larger social welfare programs that reduce inequality and improve life for poor citizens. Government spending in parliamentary countries is about 5 percent of GDP higher , after controlling for other factors, than in presidential countries. If you believe in redistribution, that's very good news indeed.

The Westminister system of parliamentary democracy also benefits from weaker upper houses. The US is saddled with a Senate that gives Wyoming the same power as California, which has more than 66 times as many people. Worse, the Senate is equal in power to the lower, more representative house. Most countries following the British system have upper houses — only New Zealand was wise enough to abolish it — but they're far, far weaker than their lower houses. The Canadian Senate and the House of Lords affect legislation only in rare cases. At most, they can hold things up a bit or force minor tweaks. They aren't capable of obstruction anywhere near the level of the US Senate.

Finally, we'd still likely be a monarchy, under the rule of Elizabeth II, and constitutional monarchy is the best system of government known to man. Generally speaking, in a parliamentary system, you need a head of state who is not the prime minister to serve as a disinterested arbiter when there are disputes about how to form a government — say, if the largest party should be allowed to form a minority government or if smaller parties should be allowed to form a coalition, to name a recent example from Canada . That head of state is usually a figurehead president elected by the parliament (Germany, Italy) or the people (Ireland, Finland), or a monarch. And monarchs are better .

Monarchs are more effective than presidents precisely because they lack any semblance of legitimacy. It would be offensive for Queen Elizabeth or her representatives in Canada, New Zealand, etc. to meddle in domestic politics. Indeed, when the governor-general of Australia did so in 1975 it set off a constitutional crisis that made it clear such behavior would not be tolerated. But figurehead presidents have some degree of democratic legitimacy and are typically former politicians. That enables a greater rate of shenanigans — like when Italian President Giorgio Napolitano schemed, successfully, to remove Silvio Berlusconi as prime minister due at least in part to German Chancellor Angela Merkel's entreaties to do so.

Napolitano is the rule, rather than the exception. Oxford political scientists Petra Schleiter and Edward Morgan-Jones have found that presidents, whether elected indirectly by parliament or directly by the people, are likelier to allow governments to change without new elections than monarchs are. In other words, they're likelier to change the government without any democratic input at all. Monarchy is, perhaps paradoxically, the more democratic option.

Watch: How America became a superpower

Will you support Vox today?

We believe that everyone deserves to understand the world that they live in. That kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, and stewards of this planet. Producing deeply researched, explanatory journalism takes resources. You can support this mission by making a financial gift to Vox today. Will you join us?

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Next Up In Politics

Sign up for the newsletter today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

North America’s biggest city is running out of water

What a Zoom cashier 8,000 miles away can tell us about the future of work

The US paused a weapons shipment to Israel. Is it a real shift in policy?

“Climate-friendly” beef could land in a meat aisle near you. Don’t fall for it.

Drake and Kendrick Lamar don’t care about misogyny

Eurovision is supposed to be fun and silly. This year is different.