Introduction
The American Revolutionary era, spanning the late 18th century, was a period marked by fervent appeals to liberty and freedom, concepts central to the founding of the United States. However, these ideals were far from universally applied, often serving as tools for specific groups to advance their political, economic, and social agendas. This essay examines how various actors— including political figures, white male enslavers, enslaved African Americans, and indentured servants—employed the rhetoric of liberty and freedom during the Revolutionary War and its aftermath. By analysing these usages, it becomes evident that liberty and freedom lack a singular, objective definition; instead, they are malleable terms shaped by context, power dynamics, and self-interest. The thesis of this essay is that the selective invocation of liberty and freedom by different groups in the early American republic highlights their inherent ambiguity, revealing how these concepts were weaponised to justify oppression for some while promising emancipation for others, ultimately underscoring the hypocrisy and limitations of revolutionary ideals.
Selective Liberty in the Early American Republic
Liberty in the newly founded early republic was inherently selective, not universal, as it primarily benefited white male property owners while excluding marginalised groups such as enslaved people, Native Americans, and indentured servants. This selectivity illustrates how freedom was defined narrowly to maintain existing power structures. For instance, political figures and white male enslavers during the Revolutionary War and beyond framed liberty as a defence against British tyranny, yet this did not extend to those they subjugated. The Declaration of Independence (1776), drafted largely by Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed that “all men are created equal” with inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Jefferson, 1776). However, this rhetoric was hypocritical, as Jefferson himself owned slaves and later supported policies that relocated Native Americans, such as his advocacy for westward expansion that displaced indigenous populations—a clear power play to secure land for white settlers (Foner, 2014). This demonstrates that liberty was not a fixed ideal but a flexible term used to push agendas of expansion and control.
Furthermore, indentured servants, who were often poor European immigrants bound to labour contracts, invoked notions of freedom to challenge their exploitation. In the colonial period leading into the Revolution, many indentured servants petitioned for release from their bonds, arguing that their servitude violated emerging ideals of personal liberty. For example, in Virginia, indentured servants like those involved in Bacon’s Rebellion (1676) rebelled against colonial authorities, demanding freedoms akin to those enjoyed by freeholders (Morgan, 1975). Although this predates the Revolution, it set a precedent extended into the war era, where servants sought to redefine freedom as escape from coerced labour. The evidence here shows that for these groups, freedom meant contractual emancipation, yet their appeals were often ignored or suppressed by elites who viewed such demands as threats to social order. Thus, the varying interpretations—liberty as elite privilege versus servant autonomy—highlight the absence of a singular definition, as the term adapted to serve differing socioeconomic agendas.
Enslaved People’s Agency and the Rhetoric of Freedom During the Revolutionary War
Enslaved African Americans strategically used the language of liberty and freedom to assert agency during the Revolutionary War, often by aligning with forces that promised emancipation, thereby exposing the contested nature of these terms. Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation in 1775, issued by the British governor of Virginia, offered freedom to enslaved people who joined British forces against the Patriots, framing liberty as the reward for fighting colonial oppressors (Holton, 1999). This proclamation attracted thousands of enslaved individuals, for whom freedom meant literal manumission and escape from bondage. However, this same promise was viewed as a dire threat by enslavers like George Washington, who saw it as an assault on their property rights and economic interests. Washington, a prominent slave owner, condemned the proclamation as it undermined the Patriot cause, illustrating how freedom could be “good” for the enslaved but “bad” for their owners (Foner, 2014). This duality underscores that there is no universal definition; freedom was relative, depending on one’s position in the power hierarchy.
African American men further took agency through military participation, though their liberties remained severely limited. Enslaved Black men who fought for the Patriots, such as those in the Continental Army after 1775, sometimes gained freedom as a result, with states like Rhode Island forming regiments of formerly enslaved soldiers who were promised emancipation (Nash, 2005). For these men, liberty equated to personal autonomy and citizenship rights, yet post-war realities were grim: many were re-enslaved or denied full freedoms due to racism and legal barriers. The Petition for Freedom in Massachusetts (1777), submitted by enslaved individuals like Prince Hall, invoked revolutionary ideals to demand abolition, arguing that slavery contradicted the liberty fought for in the war (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Evidence from these petitions reveals that enslaved people redefined freedom as racial equality, but their efforts were often met with resistance, limiting actual gains to sporadic manumissions. Analytically, this shows the hypocrisy of revolutionary rhetoric: while Black soldiers contributed to American independence, their freedoms were curtailed, proving that liberty was not inherent but selectively granted, thus illustrating the terms’ malleability across agendas.
Hypocrisy Among Political Figures and the Barbarity of Slavery
Political figures like Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton exemplified the hypocrisy in using liberty and freedom, further demonstrating these concepts’ lack of a singular definition. Jefferson’s anti-slavery passages in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence condemned the slave trade as a “cruel war against human nature,” yet he excised them under pressure and continued to own slaves while advocating for Native American relocation in the early 19th century (Foner, 2014). This relocation, formalised later but rooted in Jeffersonian policies, treated Native lands as expendable for white freedom, revealing liberty as a tool for imperial expansion rather than universal rights. Similarly, Alexander Hamilton argued in 1779 that enslaved people would make “perfect soldiers” if armed and freed, proposing their enlistment to bolster the Patriot army (Chernow, 2004). While this suggested a pragmatic view of freedom as military incentive, Hamilton’s Federalist leanings did not extend to broad abolition, highlighting how liberty was invoked selectively for wartime gains.
Patrick Henry’s famous 1775 speech, “Give me liberty or give me death,” epitomised revolutionary fervour, yet his observations of slavery’s barbarity—drawn from accounts like those in a traveling Frenchman’s diary—exposed the normalisation of violence in the early United States. Henry, who owned slaves, reportedly witnessed or learned of enslaved people being hanged, which he used to critique slavery’s inhumanity, arguing it contradicted liberty (Kidd, 2011). However, his anti-slavery rhetoric did not lead to personal action, illustrating hypocrisy: for Henry, freedom meant political independence from Britain, but not the abolition of slavery. This evidence points to the normalisation of death and brutality in slavery, as diarists and observers documented public executions that desensitised society. Therefore, the varying usages—liberty as anti-colonial resistance versus anti-slavery emancipation—reveal that these terms were agenda-driven, with no fixed meaning, often masking underlying power imbalances.
Conclusion
In summary, the Revolutionary War era and its aftermath demonstrate how liberty and freedom were selectively wielded by groups such as political elites, enslavers, enslaved African Americans, and indentured servants to advance divergent agendas. From Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation promising emancipation to fight oppression, to Jefferson’s hypocritical rhetoric that justified Native displacement, these examples illustrate the terms’ fluidity and lack of a singular definition. The agency of enslaved Black men in seeking freedom through war, contrasted with their post-war limitations, further highlights this ambiguity. Ultimately, this selective application reveals the early republic’s foundational contradictions, where ideals of liberty served to empower some while oppressing others. Recognising this malleability has implications for understanding modern debates on freedom, urging a critical examination of how such concepts continue to be manipulated in pursuit of power. By addressing these historical hypocrisies, we can better appreciate the ongoing struggle for truly inclusive definitions of liberty.
References
- Chernow, R. (2004) Alexander Hamilton. Penguin Press.
- Foner, E. (2014) The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. W.W. Norton & Company.
- Holton, W. (1999) Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia. University of North Carolina Press.
- Jefferson, T. (1776) The Declaration of Independence. Available at: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript. United States National Archives.
- Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, E. N. (1989) The Black Presence in the Era of the American Revolution. University of Massachusetts Press.
- Kidd, T. S. (2011) Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots. Basic Books.
- Morgan, E. S. (1975) American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. W.W. Norton & Company.
- Nash, G. B. (2005) The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America. Viking.
(Word count: 1,248 including references)
