A Violent Exchange of Power: The American War for Independence

Grant Eagleson

American History Before 1877

In the minds of every American and the eyes of the rest of the world, freedom

would be the virtue most strongly linked to the United States. But do these ideals

permeate the structure of our society? How disparate are the day-to-day actions and

societal structures of those in a democratic society compared to a nation ruled by a

monarch? Was our American Revolution definitively so, or was it merely an exchange

of power between the crown and the established colonial aristocracy?

Overwhelming evidence points to the conclusion that the United States

revolution did not create a nation drastically different to others in the 18th century world.

It was merely an attempt to remove calamitous Englishmen from power, not a titanic

struggle between two ways of life (as it is often portrayed). The founding fathers were

incredibly contradictory and while many Americans were intent on achieving liberty, it

was only given to a privileged elite; as a result the War for Independence did not create

marked differences from life under British monarchial rule.

A recurring complaint from colonies was the lack of representation in British

government. Parliament provided them with none of the benefits of citizenship, with all

of the financial penalties. Therefore it would be expected that one of the initial qualities

of the new republic would be equal voting rights for all. Yet this was not the case, as an

1
anonymous writer in the Philadelphia Gazette proclaims Is it not an insult to common

sense to say that a government can be formed by the authority of the people only, when

near half of them are excluded from any share in the election of the convention which is

to form the government? (Watchman 105). This is nearly an exact parallel of life as a

British subject, being deprived the right of suffrage. Without the ability to vote, what

political change will these average Americans experience? They live in a democracy,

yet will have no say in the running of their nation. It is easily one of the largest

contradictions of our original Constitution. This was realized at the time, but writers

were clearly unable to affect the thinking of American leaders. The ultimate end of all

freedom is the enjoyment of a free suffrage. A constitution formed without this important

right of free voting being preserved to the people, would be despotic (Watchman 105).

Power has not been handed to the people. it has just been transferred from royalty to

the wealthy. Their claims of liberty are nothing but principles, it is when they are finally

put into practice that true democracy is founded. These ideals were never fully

implemented, and lower classes suffered. Massachusetts farmers condemned colonial

leaders, claiming that they were turning our republican government into a hateful

aristocracy (Yeoman 13). These common workers clearly have similar feelings

towards American officials as they did towards their former British oppressors. It

became clear to them that leaders had no intention of fulfilling their promises of equality

for all, and it would be centuries before the United States had universal suffrage rights.

An undeniable evil of 18th century America was slavery, and the inaction of our

Founding Fathers in granting rights to African-Americans; freeing them from centuries of

suffering in bondage. There is no excuse for these men to embrace the idea that all

2
people are created equal and simultaneously ignore the struggles of an entire

race.Their ideological posture was weighed downwith conceptions of priorities,

profits, and prejudices that would long make the dream utopian (Freehling 83). If they

truly wanted a nation founded on the concept of liberty, how could they stand idly by

while a significant part of the continents population remained property of other human

beings? They were afraid, not wanting to risk public disapproval or the scorn of their

peers. In reference to Thomas Jefferson, Freehling bluntly confirms that The

Declaration of Independence a white mans document, that its author rarely applied

to his or to any slaves (Freehling 82). The declaration freed a very small part of our

national population. It was a document written by the white elite for themselves,

guaranteeing unlimited freedoms from the monarchy while maintaining a tyrannical grip

on those they wished to control. They had no doubts about the power they wielded, and

knew full well that they did not want to distribute it to other races and to the opposite

sex.

During the American revolution, women were assigned a secondary role. It was

made clear to them that men thought supporting their husbands would be their greatest

triumph. A song of the times, spread by New England newspapers, saw benefits for

women in the revolution, but only in terms of finding a suitable husband. To the Ladies

proclaims Though the times remain darkish;

young men may be sparkish, And love you much stronger than ever (Ladies 1). Young

women who want equality for their sex, the right to vote, and other liberties would have

been incredibly discouraged to find out that few men believed they were capable of

handling these responsibilities. Abigail Adams, in a letter to her husband, begged him

3
to Remember the Ladiesall men would be Tyrants if they could (A. Adams 185).

She knew that males all shared an unhealthy thirst for power, and that extreme caution

and smart distribution of power would be required; if the new nation was to be

successful. In response to his wifes well-stated and logical propositions on equality,

John Adams say he cannot but laugh (J. Adams 186). It is unbelievable to see a man

so contradictory, fighting to form a democratic nation while laughing at those who

propose a true break from the tyranny of the past. Could these men not clearly see the

error in their ways? If so, it is unfathomably cruel to ignore the pleas of those around

them. If not, then perhaps they are not fit to form a republic. Abigail Adams goes so far

as to challenge her husband, threatening that we have it in our power not only to free

ourselves but to subdue our Masters, and without violence throw both your natural and

legal authority at our feet (A. Adams 187). She knows that women could severely

disrupt society and launch a successful revolt themselves, conquering traditional values

of obedience and replacing them with more plausible systems embracing equality above

all else. So why did the founding fathers hesitate?

Upon further examination, we can see the true lack of change between British

rule and American independence. Our nation was not founded on the idea that majority

could rule, because four groups- Negroes, servants, women, and minors-together

approximately comprised approximately 80 percent of the population of two and a half

million Americans in the year 1776 (Zinn 248). Those who had attained power in the

years prior to the revolution became a sort of American royalty and viewed themselves

as unmovable members of an American upper class. They may not the titles of lords,

but they acted accordingly and expected the same treatment as their English

4
counterparts. A sterling example of inequality was the Boston military draft: the rich, it

turned out, could avoid the draft by paying for substitutes, the poor had to serve (Zinn

251). The wealthy members of society are sending the horrible message that their lives

are more valuable than those who have lesser means; sending young men to be killed

while they debated principles of Enlightenment philosophy. History was repeating itself,

British customs were deeply ingrained in the American way of life. After centuries of

being exposed to the English class system, the privileged upper classes had grown

accustomed to their power and had no intention of transferring it.

While the American people fought a noble war for Independence, it was nothing

like the radical revolution many imagine it to be. It was simply a violent exchange of

power, witnessed throughout British history. The only difference was that the conflict

took place abroad, rather than on English soil. It was a contradictory matter, Americans

fought against British ideals and yet maintained a majority of them after the war. And

despite having a Declaration of Independence stating that everyone was entitled to

certain liberties and freedoms, the people who actually received these were a small

minority of the entire colonial population. The principles of the United States founding

fathers were rarely put into action, these men were afraid to drastically change history

and turn their backs to the ways of living which had granted them power in the first

place. As a result, they should be condemned for their inaction; and fairly criticized by

students and historians alike for their failures. Our new nation was not distinct;

democracies had been in existence for thousands of years. While the modern

population tends to have an idealistic view of the American war for Independence, the

5
truth is that it was not any more glorious and heroic than similar events in the worlds

history. True freedom was not seen in the United States during the late 18th century.