From Redcoats to SWAT: How Americans Became Less Free

Why our government is far worse than the British Crown.

Most Americans learn about the Revolution as a fight against unfair taxes and British tyranny. But dig deeper into the Declaration of Independence, and one grievance leaps off the page: “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.”

Thomas Jefferson wasn’t just talking about soldiers traipsing about in their scarlet coats. It was about the notion that soldiers would be present in the first place. For the colonists, the idea of having troops quartered in towns enforcing royal edicts at the end of a bayonet was an egregious example of oppression.

Yet, when compared to what we see in 2025, it is not difficult to notice how far we have gone — in the wrong direction.

During the colonial era, the British Crown issued the Quartering Acts, which forced families to house British soldiers. These actions became a critical flashpoint for the colonists, who balked at the very notion that the government would have its soldiers present on their streets.

But here’s the shocking reality that many don’t discuss: What the colonists endured under British rule was a cakewalk compared to today’s government control, surveillance, and armed soldiers that too many Americans accept as normal today.

Not only do police, SWAT teams, and armed federal agents outnumber the Redcoats many times over, but their power far outweighs anything King George could have ever dreamed of.

The Crown’s Army: Numbers and Limits

Let’s take a look at the numbers. In 1775, the British maintained a force of roughly 7,000 troops throughout all 13 colonies. Given that the population was about 2.5 million people, that amounts to a mere two soldiers for every 100,000 colonists.

Even further, the vast majority were stationed at frontier forts to defend against incursions from French troops or Native Americans. They were not strolling around city streets looking to accost people for petty infractions. In fact, the quartering of soldiers in people’s homes was rare.

It’s also important to note that while these soldiers enforced tax laws and customs, they still remained under strict legal constraints. The colonists often complained about “writs of assistance,” which gave soldiers general warrants to search ships coming and going from the colonies.

This was already bad enough. But at least there were still more constraints on how soldiers could conduct themselves in the line of duty.

And yet, it was still enough to push the colonists to start stacking British bodies.

From Redcoats to Blue Shields

Now, let’s come back to the present day to compare. Today, the United States has over 720,000 law enforcement officers, which amounts to about 240 per 100,000 citizens. This is a whopping 120 times more than in the colonial era.

If the colonists thought the limited reach of British troops was intolerable, they would lose their wigs if they saw what we deal with today. In nearly every single city, town, and county, modern police have a very visible presence. They are doing far more than simply carrying muskets and sipping tea.

SWAT teams, which are paramilitary forces intended for use in limited circumstances, are deployed approximately 15,000 times per year for routine law enforcement actions. That’s about 41 times per day, folks.

Remember Sean Dunn, the guy who is facing charges for hurling a sandwich at a Customs and Border Patrol officer? A federal SWAT team raided his home to arrest him, even though he said he would voluntarily turn himself in. Perhaps they were afraid he might assault them with some cold cuts, too?

These paramilitary forces are most often used for nonviolent drug investigations, arrests, and even serving warrants. After all, if cities want to maintain funding for their police department’s military units, they have to use them for something, right? Can anyone reasonably argue that this is a prime example of a standing military in our cities?

Remember what I said about the writs of assistance used during colonial times? Well, today, it’s much worse. Police execute about 20,000 no-knock raids every year. This means that about 55 times per day, heavily armed street soldiers charge into private homes with little to no warning. These incidents place civilians and officers in danger — especially because they are unnecessary in most cases.

Not even the redcoats would just charge into someone’s home without knocking.

There is also the issue of civil asset forfeiture, a practice that empowers law enforcement to literally steal your property if they conclude that it has been used to commit a crime. They can seize cash, cars, and even homes based only on “suspicion” of criminal activity.

There is no due process. You don’t even have to be convicted, or even arrested, for a crime for police to use civil asset forfeiture to steal your property. Through this practice, federal authorities have seized over $68 billion over the past 15 years. Almost 87 percent of these cases did not result in criminal charges. This is why people refer to it as “policing for profit.”

Under colonial times, laws mandated that the authorities had real evidence of contraband.

What makes today’s practices even more disgusting is that it is almost impossible to hold corrupt police officers accountable. When British soldiers broke the law, they faced real trials. I’m not going to pretend these trials were always fair; they would often get away with abuses. But today, law enforcement and prosecutors enjoy far greater protections.

This is because of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields police and other officials from civil lawsuits unless their conduct violates “clearly established law.” In essence, an officer’s actions would have to break a law that explicitly outlaws their exact actions. Otherwise, they get off scot-free.

Even in cases where a judge does not grant qualified immunity, officers are rarely required to pay out of pocket, as their police department or local government typically covers the cost of the settlement.

In light of this, can we truly argue that America is the land of the free? Of course not. Ever since the Revolutionary War concluded, the government has steadily grown into the monstrosity we see today.

I’m not trying to argue that things were perfect under the colonial era. King George was definitely a tyrant.

But if we call him tyrannical, then what should we call our current federal, state, and local governments?