The American Revolution had a significant impact on the non-British islands in the Caribbean. Especially during the first three years of the revolutionary war, the French colonies of Martinique and Saint-Domingue and the Dutch island of St. Eustatius played an active role in furnishing arms and ammunition to the Patriots. The subsequent formal declarations of war by France and Spain against Great Britain moved the war’s center of gravity to the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. Combined French and Spanish naval power there more than matched that of Britain, leading to the conquest of several British islands. In those islands that revolved around plantation agriculture based on slavery, the war created military possibilities for the growing group of free men of color and, by reducing food supplies, induced marronage. Free and enslaved nonwhites thus engaged in their own quest for freedom and equality in the shadow of the North American independence war.

This essay challenges the historiographical myth of salutary neglect on many levels, beginning by exploring how it came to its current, dominant interpretive status. I argue that it grows out of a desire to see the colonies as relatively democratic and independent, but that such a perception is deeply problematic. The levers of imperial control were powerful throughout the colonial period; colonial political systems did not develop “in a state of nature”; the tendrils of legal control were invidious and far-reaching; and force–the power of empire–was never far away. British navies, in particular, supplemented by occasional armies and colonial militias under the command of the Governor, along with all the mechanisms of legal control–sheriffs and executions, heads on stakes at the public crossroads–lurked always on the horizon, ready to intervene if necessary, sometimes only in the public imagination, but often in fact. This chapter is a call to think deeply about the power of empire during the colonial period. Doing so will lead to a richer understanding of what broke down between 1763 and 1776, but also of what came before. Salutary neglect it was not.

Blacks living in North America fought on both sides of the American Revolutionary War, though Loyalism proved very appealing to enslaved Blacks who found themselves in a position to choose sides freely. The American Revolution brought abolition to northern states in the new United States, but strengthened slavery in the southern states. The years of the American Revolution brought great material hardship to enslaved people in the British West Indian colonies. The French and Haitian Revolutions produced more than a decade of upheaval in the Caribbean, and their legacies helped change the balance of power between slaves and masters in the three decades that followed Haitian independence. On balance, the Age of Atlantic Revolutions strengthened the hand of Black slaves in the British Caribbean, inspiring the closing of the Atlantic slave trade, the passage of “ameliorative” legislation, and Parliament’s decision to abolish slavery in British America. The American Revolution created a nation split between states that recognized slavery and those that did not, but it also produced an expansive plantation economy that continued to grow and enslave increasing numbers of people until the Civil War ended slavery in the United States.

What is known as the American Revolution or the American Independence War, was much more than what its name suggests. What started in April 1775 as a revolt turned into a revolution within a year. With the intervention of France in July 1778, it became a transatlantic war, which in June 1779, when Spain entered the conflict, was transformed into a global war. This global conflict, fought in four continents as well as on the high seas, was rooted in the centuries-old confrontation between France, Spain, and Britain for the expansion and control of their empires. France and Spain shared a mutual interest in weakening the British. During the first stages of the conflict, both countries “secretly” supplied the American rebels, but as the war spread, their approaches differed. While France, with no territories in North America, allied with the recently proclaimed independent United States; Spain, with a vast American empire to protect, would only consider France as its official ally. Despite their different interests and tactics, Franco-Spanish joint operations in Europe, the Caribbean, and the South of North America, were decisive for the final British defeat.

The transatlantic intellectual movement today called “the Enlightenment” took particular forms in British North America during the American Revolution. This essay explores four interlocking Enlightenment concepts as used by eighteenth-century Americans to describe their political revolt against British monarchical rule: nature, progress, reason, and revolution. Americans appealed to nature to delegitimize claims to authority that rested on history, custom, divine access, and lineage. Dispensing with cyclical ideas of history and decline narratives from the Bible, they invented the new idea of progress as a way to describe social and political improvements resulting from human reason. They described reason, in turn, as a distinct mode of knowledge resulting from sensory data, opposing it to knowledge resting on belief or the passions alone. Finally, they described their own break with Britain as a revolution because it seemed to show the reality of progress toward a better world of reason, natural rights, and government by the people. The essay also surveys the historiography on “the American Enlightenment,” a term invented by Americans during the Cold War era amid fears of Soviet-style totalitarianism. Eighteenth-century people themselves spoke of “enlightenment” as a never-ending process rather than a finished project.

The American federal union was created in 1781 by the Articles of Confederation. Designed to protect the independence and promote the interests of the member-states, it concentrated power over international matters and war in a central government. Although the Articles granted extensive powers to a congress of states, their implementation was left to the state governments. This arrangement proved dysfunctional and by early 1787, the future of the union was in doubt. The Constitution challenged neither the aims nor the purposes of the American union. Instead, it radically reformed its structure. It set up a central government with a legislative, executive and judicial branch and the right to legislate directly on the individual citizens of the American states. By allowing the federal government to operate independently of the states, the problem of the non-implementation of congressional decisions was overcome. Only with the adoption of the Constitution did the American union acquire national cohesion and a central government with the capacity to act with determination and energy against foreign powers and stateless peoples on the North American continent.

This chapter offers a critical analysis of how scholars have interpreted the relationship between eighteenth-century cultural practice and revolutionary politics, circa 1760 to 1825. The chapter first surveys and classifies eighteenth century cultural practice, identifying three main types: the social arts, practices of everyday life, and fine arts. The bulk of the essay then reflects on three major paradigms for interpreting how these forms of culture interacted with revolutionary politics. The dominant approach, exemplified by literature on the “bourgeois public sphere,” argues that eighteenth-century culture prefigured or lay the groundwork for revolutionary politics. Other scholars, particularly those working on the fine arts in the revolutionary era, have emphasized how cultural practices were transformed by revolutionary politics. A third, newer approach emphasizes the autonomy of cultural practice. Scholars working within this paradigm argue that cultural change was itself a form of revolution and that culture acted as an independent container for new political practices during the revolutionary era. This paradigm points the way to a broader, more inclusive account of revolution in this period. The essay covers the historiographies of eighteenth-century culture and revolutionary politics in North America, Europe (especially France and the Netherlands), and Latin America (especially Peru).

Beginning in the 1760s, white women’s political activism and agency grew and developed as a result of Enlightenment theory, religious revival, and the politicization of the household economy. Revolutionary fervor created new political spaces for women as they engaged in political protests and boycotts. The circumstances of the war further refined Americans’ perceptions of women’s fortitude, political allegiance, piety, and self-direction. These factors combined to create a new foundation for white women’s participation in the republican political culture of the United States as the guardians of moral and political virtue. These new notions of women’s political connection to the state through moral authority and motherhood, however, created increasingly separate political spaces for women and men. Despite the development of women’s political agency during the Revolution, by the early 1800s many Americans began to look to the patriarchal family to restore order and social authority. Men abandoned the idea that women could be competent political actors and instead promoted a specifically masculine ideal of citizenship. State legislators and jurists revised their ideas about women’s citizenship, inheritance, and allegiance to the state. This refashioning chipped away at most claims women had to economic independence or direct political participation.