Grievance #11 of the Declaration of Independence
Why were British troops stationed throughout the colonies during peacetime?
In Grievance #11 of the Declaration of Independence, JJ Nattrass from George Washington University explains why colonists grew increasingly suspicious of the British military presence in America.
After the Seven Years’ War, Britain kept standing armies in the colonies, claiming the troops were there to maintain stability and prevent further conflict. But many colonists saw something very different.
Redcoats appeared not just on the frontier, but in major cities, where their presence began to feel less like protection and more like surveillance and intimidation.
Events like the Boston Massacre only deepened those fears. To many Americans, the presence of standing armies without local consent looked like a direct threat to liberty and self-government.
This is Part 11 of our 27-part series breaking down every grievance that led to the American Revolution, building toward Independence Day.
0:00 He has kept among us, in times of peace,
0:02 standing armies without the consent of
0:04 our legislatures. Now, on the surface,
0:06 this is a legitimate grievance, but with
0:09 everything in life, it’s a bit more
0:11 complicated than the signers of the
0:12 Declaration alluded to. Indeed, the
0:14 colonists had reason to feel salty and
0:17 kind of sour about the presence of
0:18 troops in their hometowns, but the Crown
0:20 also did have a point in placing troops
0:22 in the colonies, one that would actually
0:24 benefit most colonists. Following the
0:26 Seven Years’ War and the Treaty of Paris
0:28 in 1763, most British colonists in the
0:30 Americas thought that having won the
0:32 Great War against the French and taking
0:33 Canada, they and their motherland would
0:35 turn their muskets and swords on native
0:37 peoples who occupied rich and untapped
0:39 lands. However, the British Crown had
0:42 absolutely no interest in engaging in
0:44 another ruinous and costly war in its
0:46 colonies at this specific time. Native
0:48 people were seen as both subjects and as
0:50 foreign allies, depending on their
0:52 proximity to colonial boundaries.
0:54 However, increasing colonial pressure
0:56 against Proclamation Line resulted in
0:58 conflict with native peoples. The
1:00 colonial governments had to do something
1:02 to protect their colonists. Hence,
1:03 Britain sent a number of troops, the red
1:05 coats, to the colonies. These troops
1:08 ended up on the frontiers as well as in
1:10 major cities, but the men were never
1:12 actually sent forth to attack native
1:13 people.
1:14 From the colonists’ point of view, a
1:16 number of issues, plus the troops’
1:18 actions on the ground, seemed not only
1:20 to contradict the British claims that
1:22 the troops were there for their safety.
1:23 Their actions categorically spoke of a
1:26 plot to suppress them and even aid
1:28 enemies. The stationing of so many who
1:31 were seen as taking it upon themselves
1:32 to police and intimidate the king’s own
1:33 people went down pretty badly. The fears
1:36 of every citizen of the colonies seemed
1:38 to prove justified in 1770 with the
1:40 Boston Massacre. This was but an ounce
1:42 of the proof colonists actually needed,
1:44 even as early as 1770, to argue these
1:47 soldiers were not to protect colonists,
1:50 but to oppress them in breach of their
1:52 own laws and wants.
