AEI’s Jamila Raqib in Waging Nonviolence on the American Colonial Resistance

Published on May 27, 2026

The American colonial resistance
By Jamila Raqib

Nonviolent struggle has a long and rich history, and has been widely practiced in different parts of the world, by diverse populations, for different objectives. But much of this history has been neglected or ignored in favor of highlighting stories of violence and war. This gives people the false idea that the progress, human rights, and the democratic freedoms we hold dear were won through violence and war, and it is violence and war that they must use to conduct their struggles.

One of the most historically significant nonviolent struggles in the world took place right here in this country, long before the Civil Rights Movement. It is fitting that we speak about this important case as our country celebrates the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence this year.

According to the narrative we are taught in our books and films and schools, and in our national narrative, it was the Revolutionary War, beginning with the Battles of Lexington and Concord that won US independence from British rule.

This whole period in our history is taught as a series of battles and military confrontations. But the actual historical record shows a different story – that resistance against British rule did not begin with the battles of Lexington and Concord.

In the years leading up to the American Revolution, the colonists conducted a massive nonviolent struggle that achieved de facto independence from the British through three major campaigns – against the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts, and the Coercive Acts of 1774.

Most of the colonies, eight out of 13, in fact, were functioning independently months before the battles of Lexington, Concord, before the violence. At the Albert Einstein Institution, we re-issued a book that describes what happened in this critical period before 1775, because it’s extremely important that this history be preserved.

In the course of their struggle, the colonists developed and used nonviolent methods that ranged from protest and noncooperation to the creation of parallel institutions – political, judicial, and executive bodies that challenged the ruling authority.

They explored and tried out new techniques. They used methods such as petitions, protest marches, demonstrations, boycotts, and refusal to work.

They also used social noncooperation: when colonial merchants imported English goods that the colonists were boycotting, people not only refused to buy from them, but also to talk with them, to sit with them in church, or to sell them goods of any kind.

They spun and wore their own homespun cloth. They held mass protests and established local resistance committees. Newspapers reported resistance activities and built support for the opposition.

Although there’s not a lot of information available, women played an essential role in many of the local campaigns. Women made the decisions about household and family purchases, and to a large degree, were able to bring about the success of the boycott campaigns.

The British reaction to the resistance was swift and harsh. To punish the people of Massachusetts for their defiance, they closed Boston Harbor until the tea thrown overboard in the Boston Tea Party was paid for, threatening the livelihood of the population. They banned town meetings that were held without the royalist governor’s consent, and they stipulated that British soldiers be housed by the local population.

But as often happens, the repression didn’t have the intended consequences. Instead of subduing the population and isolating Massachusetts, the repression only caused increased defiance among them, and brought outside support for Massachusetts from the other colonies.

The noncooperation and defiance in Massachusetts was so massive that in early 1774, the royalist governor of Massachusetts is reported to have said, “I have no power outside of my own house.” Meaning, the authority of the powerful British empire had been pulled out from under him.

These acts of resistance were carried out nonviolently, but the choice to use nonviolent means was not based on principled opposition to violence. It was a clear pragmatic choice. They were using the means that they reasoned would offer them an advantage, and which would make it more likely that they would achieve their objectives.

The resistance continued and grew. The colonists set up their own judicial system to settle disputes outside of the British courts, and organized alternative forms of government. Towards the end of the nonviolent struggle, many of the systems and bodies that they set up were more powerful than whatever remained of the royalist government.

By the time that the colonies declared independence in 1776 they had incredibly advanced democratic governance. And in this way, the institutions and networks of power that were developed to demonstrate opposition, to organize, and to conduct resistance, those same institutions played a major role in the country’s transition to a democratic system.

In spite of these massive achievements, the people-led, nonviolent revolution to free the colonies from British rule is generally ignored or forgotten. Instead, it’s the war that commonly defines what people understand as the “American Revolution.” The danger here is how can we know what is possible for the future if we don’t have an understanding of what has been made possible in the past by brave and persistent people?