Every few years, I find myself revisiting a remarkable piece on the American Revolution penned by economic historian Jeff Hummel, which you can find over at Econlib. I initially requested Jeff to write this insightful article back in 2018, and it has since become a timeless favorite.
Indeed, a few years back, Liberty Fund noted in their newsletter:
“Our most popular article ever is from Jeffrey Rogers Hummel in 2018, transforming the Revolution into an externality narrative. He asserts, ‘Despite its apparent costs and excesses, the American Revolution yielded enormous net benefits not just for the citizens of the newly independent United States, but also, in the long run, for people around the world.’
Once you delve into it, the reasons for its popularity become clear. Hummel addresses the numerous misconceptions that seemingly well-informed individuals have about the Revolution.
Here are the opening two paragraphs from “Benefits of the American Revolution: An Exploration of Positive Externalities.”
It has become almost fashionable, even among libertarians and classical liberals, to downplay the benefits of the American Revolution. Take libertarian Bryan Caplan, for instance, who questions, “Can anyone explain why American independence was worth fighting for?… When you inquire about specific libertarian policy changes that emerged from the Revolution, it’s difficult to find a satisfactory answer. In fact, with the clarity of hindsight, it’s clear that independence led to two significant anti-libertarian outcomes: it eliminated the last real restraint on American aggression against Native Americans and allowed American slavery to sidestep earlier—and more peaceful—abolition.” Such skepticism also finds resonance in various contemporary mainstream writings, both popular and scholarly.
However, the American Revolution, despite its clear costs and excesses, ushered in substantial net benefits not just for the citizens of the newly independent United States but also, over time, for people globally. The notion that, without the American Revolution, the treatment of indigenous populations would have been more humane or that slavery would have faced earlier abolition reflects a profound historical naivety. In reality, a far more compelling argument can be made that without the Revolution, the plight of Native Americans would not have improved, the emancipation of slaves in the British West Indies would have faced significant delays, and the conditions of European colonists throughout the British Empire—beyond just those in what would become the United States—would have been markedly worse.
There are many compelling sections, but I’ll highlight three key points:
Following the Revolution, almost all former colonies adopted written state constitutions that established republican governments with checks on state power, encapsulated in bills of rights. Only Rhode Island and Connecticut clung to their colonial charters, albeit with minor tweaks. The new constitutions often broadened the electorate, with Vermont leading the charge by implementing universal male suffrage without property qualifications and explicitly disregarding color. In tandem with this, penal codes across the former colonies were reformed, becoming less severe and abolishing brutal physical punishments like ear-cropping and branding, which were still commonplace in Britain. Virginia notably slashed the number of capital offenses from twenty-seven to just two: murder and treason.
Furthermore:
The U.S. Constitution’s ban on titles of nobility may appear trivial and outdated by contemporary standards. Yet, such titles, still common in the Old World, were tied to significant legal privileges. This provision exemplifies how the Revolution marked a decline in societal deference. Gordon Wood, the eminent historian of the Revolution, captures this transformation in his Pulitzer Prize-winning work, The Radicalism of the American Revolution. He notes that in 1760, the “two million monarchical subjects” living in the British colonies “still accepted that society was and ought to be a hierarchy of ranks and degrees of dependency.” However, “by the early years of the nineteenth century, the Revolution had fostered a society fundamentally different from the colonial hierarchy of the eighteenth century.”
This shift can even be observed in subtle changes in language. Workers no longer referred to their employers as “master” or “mistress,” opting instead for the less servile term “boss.” Men began to use the title “Mr.,” which had traditionally been reserved for the gentry. While these changes may seem merely cultural, they reflected and reinforced the dismantling of coercive support for hierarchy, creating a self-reinforcing cycle. In the wake of the Revolution, indentured servitude for immigrants dwindled, and most states abolished legal penalties enforcing long-term labor contracts for residents, paving the way for a modern free labor system where most workers (outside of military service) could resign at will. This stands in stark contrast to Britain, where as late as 1823, Parliament enacted a Master and Servant Act that imposed criminal penalties for breaking a labor contract.
There’s an abundance of insights to unpack. I highly recommend reading the entire article, especially if you aspire to contribute informed commentary on this pivotal historical event.
Wishing everyone a happy July 4th in advance! I might not be posting tomorrow, as I’ll be participating in the local July 4th parade with my group, “Monterey County Libertarians for Peace.”
Note: The image features the Betsy Ross flag displayed at my residence.
