Futile Oppression

In addition to my previous post about freedom, it is interesting how the oppressive measures of the British government actually promoted the pursuit of liberty in America. The textbook Give Me Liberty even depicts British oppression as the pinnacle of American independence. It is obvious that oppression can create resentment, which is a major proponent of revolution. However, the absolute monarchies in Europe were able to consolidate power and oppress the "commoners" without having to face major opposition until late 18th century. (after the American Revolution) There must be some elements of the American colonial society capable of sustaining the concept of freedom and strengthen it in face of oppression. It is essential for us to explore this core factor in a multifaceted event in order to unravel the complex network of historical occurrences contributing to the success of the American Revolution.

What is the nature of British oppression? This is a question we must ask in order to analyze its weaknesses. By listing out the different enactments - Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Townshend Act, Tea Act, et cetera, we can see an apparent pattern - the British government focused on commercial benefits rather than sociopolitical factors. Britain was heavily in debt after the French and Indian War, so their view on the colonies as a source of economic support became greater than their original intention of using the colonies as a symbol of British colonial success. Due to this fact, they were unable to defend or justify their actions through strong social and political arguments. Furthermore, with the composition of colonial authorities being a group of aristocrats and wealthy merchants, economic aggression would greatly offend the decentralized system of colonies.

The American colonies' ability to evolve from a system of autonomous states to a united society was also an essential factor to counter British oppression. Initially, delegates from some colonies rejected the idea of opposing the British monarchy, which was an expected outcome given that a main motive behind Britain's oppressive approach was to install fear and subordination within the colonies. However, as punctuated previously, economic aggression violated the most essential source of income for colonial leaders. Facing a common enemy, it was only natural that the colonies joined forces to avoid the predicament. Therefore, the British misplaced their oppression, allowing colonial authorities to exploit the social and political weaknesses of British control. Colonial elites were able to sustain the little damage dealt to them through economic aggression and alter it as to promote centralization of power against weakened British influence on the colonies.

British oppression was misdirected, the colonies were united, and British control was weakened. It is clear now that British efforts to obstruct the American Revolution actually became a major proponent of its success. This may seem obvious given the circumstances listed previously, but it is a very interesting outcome in comparison with other revolutions of similar objectives in Europe. For instance, the French Revolution, the most iconic of all European revolutions due to its sociopolitical complexity, was unable to utilize oppression as its driving force. An authoritative government's main goal is always to suppress a revolution through oppression, and the French absolute monarchy did so effectively. Although the system was overthrown eventually, the concept was ineradicable. The conservatist representatives of the Congress of Vienna, the parliamentary monarchy in England, and the monarchical nature of French "empires" are all examples of an oppressive system being deeply ingrained within European society. If oppression is so pervasive, then "true liberty", being clearly defined as an inverse of oppression, would never exist. The American Revolution gave the entire world a prime example of how oppression can be redirected, not overcome, in order to support the manifestation of liberty.