The Patriots liked to frame their cause in the stark terms of freedom vs. tyranny. Why? It sounded good for recruiting. Seriously. What would you rather join, a group that was fighting for freedom against a tyrannical king? Or a couple guys who'd rather the king kinda left them alone?
Whether or not it was actual tyranny is up for debate. Tyranny tends to be in the mind of the beholder. So while someone like Jefferson might look at the Stamp Act and see tyranny…and one of the many people Jefferson owned as slaves might look at Jefferson and think the same thing.
The Treaty of Paris settled the matter by asserting the freedom of the United States from Great Britain, and pretty much any other king out there. That was a pretty new kind of freedom. Unless you were a time-traveling ancient Greek—then it was cool and familiar.
Questions About Freedom and Tyranny
- Did the Treaty of Paris provide freedom from tyranny, or did it just replace one tyrant with another? How so?
- If King George was a tyrant, why was the treaty so generous? What did he have to gain through this various concessions?
- Was the Treaty of Paris truly about freedom and tyranny or was that merely the language used by the Founding Fathers? What would be more appropriate language?
- Other than independence, how did the Treaty of Paris address the concerns of the Patriots? Did it? Did it have the ability or scope to do so? Why or why not?
Chew on This
The Treaty of Paris threw off the shackles of tyranny and allowed the citizens of the United States the freedom to choose their leaders.
The Treaty of Paris only succeeded in replacing a single tyrant in the person of King George, with a legion of them in the form of multiple layers of government.