Advertisement
Eli Merritt

How martial law made the American Revolution

Smoke rises as a row of people in red coats, white breeches and black tricorn hats open fire
British redcoat reenactors fire a salvo in April 2025 as they take part in the 250th anniversary commemoration of the Battles of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts, at the start of the American Revolution.
(Joseph Prezioso / AFP/Getty Images)

On this Fourth of July, with federal troops still on the ground in Los Angeles, our own American Revolution provides a surprising lesson on the perils of military overreach in domestic affairs. Notably, the nation’s political and military leaders should consider the British blunders of the 1770s as they weigh the prospect of militarizing American streets, now and in the future.

Parliament’s Stamp Act tax of the mid-1760s ignited the Anglo-American conflict. Yet, as historians broadly agree, it was escalating martial law in Boston under different legislation, the Coercive Acts of 1774, that transformed American resistance into full-scale revolution.

Let’s start by recalling what had happened four years earlier during protests over the Townshend duties, a series of taxes Parliament added to everyday goods, including tea, exported to the colonies. The British ministry responded to the unrest by stationing approximately 2,000 redcoats in Boston.

They’re busy being dead, but we can still ‘listen’ to Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin and Washington.

On the night of March 5, 1770, in an accidental bloodbath set off by the pelting of soldiers with snowballs, the British opened fire on a crowd of unarmed civilians outside the Custom House, killing five and wounding others.

Advertisement

Let me observe,” Sam Adams soon wrote about the Boston Massacre, “how fatal are the effects, the danger of which I long ago mentioned, of posting a standing army among a free people.”

The problem worsened after the Boston Tea Party. The hacking to pieces of 342 crates of tea owned by the East India Co. in late 1773 was, of course, criminal activity. As such, it warranted the full application of colonial and municipal law against the offenders.

Instead of leaving justice to the locals, however, Parliament passed the four draconian bills known as the Coercive Acts. To enforce them, in a fatal progression, King George III’s ministers dispatched a military governor and occupying army to Boston, in effect imposing martial law on the entire colony for the unlawful actions of a few.

This essence of the American experiment began with the colonists’ defiance and continues today with nonviolent fights for racial justice, equality in voting, LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive freedom.

Each of the Coercive Acts struck at the heart of Massachusetts self-rule. The Boston Port Act shut down all trade through Boston Harbor and its surrounding waterways, while the Massachusetts Government Act dissolved the colony’s assembly, courts and town meetings. The remaining two acts allowed trials to be relocated overseas and forced residents to house British troops at the governor’s discretion.

Taken together, the Coercive Acts constituted an unprecedented assault on the rights and freedoms of the American people. Colonists decried them as “barbarous,” “diabolical” and “Tyrannic” — the work of a “Despotic power.”

What followed is familiar to many Americans. Massachusetts, under martial law, summoned the other colonies to a continental congress in Philadelphia. In reaction, the king and Parliament declared the colonies to be in a state of rebellion, ordering thousands of additional redcoats across the Atlantic to crush dissent and make arrests.

Advertisement

A conflict the British thought they could resolve with boots on the ground only escalated. On April 19, 1775, in another tragedy of unintended carnage — this time triggered by a stray bullet — the king’s troops gunned down eight colonials on Lexington Green, turning protest into civil war.

President Trump is not just unraveling a system of government, he’s denying the American Creed, the truths we have considered self-evident since 1776.

Fifteen months later, as a remedy of last resort, the colonies declared independence, highlighting Britain’s regime of martial law as the first cause of the breach. The declaration pointedly charges King George with “abolishing our most valuable laws,” “suspending our own Legislatures” and “[keeping] among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.”

History doesn’t deliver road maps, but it does abound in examples of military overreach sparking unpredictable violence. In the case of the American Revolution, we are reminded that deploying an army on the streets where one’s own citizens live and work provokes tension, fear and anger — and sometimes, by the twin forces of accident and escalation, bloodshed and lasting civil discord.

Eli Merritt is a political historian at Vanderbilt University. He writes the Substack newsletter American Commonwealth and is the author of “Disunion Among Ourselves: The Perilous Politics of the American Revolution.”

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Center Right point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis

Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • The article asserts that the British imposition of martial law through the Coercive Acts of 1774 was the pivotal factor that transformed colonial resistance into full-scale revolution, as these acts dismantled self-governance in Massachusetts and imposed military occupation[1][2].
  • It contends that the British overreacted to the Boston Tea Party by replacing local judicial processes with military enforcement, which colonists perceived as tyrannical and an assault on their rights[3][4].
  • The author emphasizes that the Declaration of Independence explicitly cites British martial law—including the suspension of legislatures and stationing of standing armies—as a primary justification for independence[1][4].
  • Drawing a parallel to contemporary issues, the piece warns that deploying military forces domestically risks escalating civil tension and unintended violence, as exemplified by the Lexington massacre of 1775[2][4].

Different views on the topic

  • Historians note that the Coercive Acts were a targeted response to the destruction of property during the Boston Tea Party, aimed at restoring order and ensuring compensation for corporate losses, rather than indiscriminate oppression[2][3].
  • Economic analyses highlight that the Boston Port Act’s closure of the harbor caused severe shortages of essentials like coal and rice, but also inadvertently stimulated colonial self-sufficiency by boosting domestic manufacturing[1][3].
  • Some scholars argue the acts unified previously divided colonies by demonstrating British overreach, catalyzing the First Continental Congress and coordinated boycotts that were crucial to revolutionary momentum[1][4].
  • An alternative perspective suggests that without the Coercive Acts’ escalation, armed conflict might have been avoidable, as colonial petitions sought peaceful resolution until military occupation radicalized the populace[1][2].

Advertisement