The reported 2027 John Locke History question "Was American Independence worth the bloodshed?" asks you to set a standard of value and then run a counterfactual: what did roughly 25,000 or more American military deaths, a Loyalist exodus and a frontier war buy that could not have been had more cheaply? Below are three readings to start with and the main arguments to weigh, from the Declaration's own prudence test to the Loyalist exodus, the Native nations and the slavery counterfactual.
The question at a glance
| Category | History |
| Exact wording | "Was American Independence worth the bloodshed?" (reported from the Institute's October 2026 events; the Institute's website will carry the official list) |
| Word limit | 2,000 words for the essay body, not counting endnotes and bibliography |
| Who can enter | Any student under 19 on the submission deadline, from any country; under-15s are judged separately in the Junior category |
What the question is really asking
"Worth" is the word that matters. It makes this a question about value, so before you weigh anything you have to say what you are weighing with. Lives against liberty? Long-run welfare? The standards of 1776 or of today? An essay that never names its standard ends up as a list of pros and cons.
"The bloodshed" is narrower than "the costs", and it is a choice. The direct toll is the soldiers. The tallies Rick Atkinson cites put American deaths at 25,674 on one count and as many as 35,800 on another, out of roughly a quarter of a million who served, "divided with rough parity among battle, disease, and British prisons." But the blood also includes Loyalists driven out, enslaved people who fought on both sides, and Native nations who lost the Crown's protection when the war ended. You need to decide whose blood goes in the ledger, and say so.
"American Independence" is the outcome, not only the war. That means you are running a counterfactual whether you like it or not: worth it compared with what? The obvious comparison is the slower, mostly peaceful road taken by Canada and Australia. The hidden question is whether that road would ever have been open to the Thirteen Colonies in the 1770s.
There is a live historiographical fight under all of this. In 1967 Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution argued that principle and a "distrust of governmental power", rather than economic interest, were central to the colonists' cause. In 2019 the New York Times' 1619 Project claimed that protecting slavery was "one of the primary reasons" for independence. It later changed "the colonists" to "some of the colonists" after historians, Gordon Wood and Leslie Harris among them, disputed it. Whichever side you come down on, you are taking part in that argument.
The trap
The trap is treating Canada and Australia as clean control cases: "they got self-government without a war, so the war was unnecessary." It sounds rigorous, but it assumes that the British Empire of 1776 would have behaved like the British Empire of 1848 or 1901. The Canadian evidence suggests that the later, gentler Britain was shaped by having lost America. A strong essay tests the counterfactual before relying on it. A weak one borrows it and stops thinking.
The second trap is ending with "it depends on who you ask." That is a survey, not an answer. Take a position, then concede the group for whom it fails.
Three core readings
1. The Declaration of Independence (1776)
Transcript, U.S. National Archives: archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
Students usually quote the famous second sentence and stop there. Keep reading. The Declaration contains its own cost-benefit test: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." That clause gives you a standard of value written by the people who started the war, so you can judge them by it without being accused of presentism. The list of grievances matters too. It complains of the King "raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands" and describes Native peoples as "the merciless Indian Savages." Those two lines tell you who stood to lose from independence, in the founders' own words.
2. Gordon S. Wood, interview on the 1619 Project (2019)
"'When the Declaration says that all men are created equal, that is no myth': An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times' 1619 Project," World Socialist Web Site, 28 November 2019: wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html
Wood is one of the leading historians of the Revolution. In this long interview (on a socialist website, which is worth knowing but changes nothing about what he says) he takes on the claim that independence was a way of protecting slavery. "The Revolution unleashed antislavery sentiments that led to the first abolition movements in the history of the world." He also runs the counterfactual you need: Britain abolished slavery in the West Indies in 1833 against a weak planter lobby, and with the Southern colonies still inside the empire, Wood thinks it "might never have done so then." He concedes that Dunmore's 1775 proclamation pushed hesitant Virginia planters into the Patriot camp, which gives you the strongest point for the other side as well.
3. Maya Jasanoff, Liberty's Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World (2011)
The book is the core reading. For a free way in, read Sarah Sweeney, "Fleeing America," Harvard Gazette, 7 April 2011: news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/04/fleeing-america
Jasanoff tells the war from the losing side. Some 60,000 Loyalists left the United States, taking 15,000 enslaved people with them to Canada, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Sierra Leone and elsewhere. She calls it "quite possibly the largest civilian exodus (as a percentage of population) in U.S. history." The awkward fact for your essay is that the British offer of freedom to enslaved people who fought led to some 20,000 emancipations, which the Gazette's report calls the largest American emancipation until the Civil War. As she puts it, "Here in America we learn about the revolution from the winners' side." Use her to put Loyalist losses on your ledger and to complicate any simple story in which independence and freedom go together.
Arguments to think about
Each of these can carry a 2,000-word essay. Pick the one you can defend against its strongest objection, and make sure your essay answers that objection directly.
Yes, by the Declaration's own test. The Declaration says prudence forbids changing long-established governments "for light and transient causes". That gives you a standard the founders set for themselves, so you can judge them by it without being accused of presentism. Argue that the grievances were serious, that no cheaper route was open in 1776, and that the price (25,000 or more American military deaths, plus the Loyalist exodus) falls within what that test allows. The concession you cannot avoid is the Native nations, who bore much of the cost and gained nothing.
No: the cheaper road was there. Take Canada seriously, but answer the objection in the trap above: the empire that later granted Canada self-government had learned that lesson by losing America. You could argue that at some point in the war Britain would have offered terms the colonists could have lived with, so the fighting after that point bought nothing a negotiated settlement would not have. This works only if you can show what was actually on offer and why it would have held.
No, for the enslaved: independence built a slaveholders' republic. Use the amended 1619 claim, Dunmore's Proclamation and the 20,000 people freed by fighting for Britain to argue that for enslaved Americans, the Crown was the better bet. The hard step is the counterfactual. You need to explain why a Britain containing the Southern planters would still have abolished slavery by the 1830s, against Wood's argument that it might not have.
The question cannot be answered as asked, but a narrower one can. A historiographical essay can argue that "worth it" across 250 years is a question for moral philosophy, and that the historian's job is to judge actors by standards they themselves held. Then set the Patriots' prudence clause against the Loyalists' case for staying, and decide who read 1776 better on their own terms.
Whichever you choose, write down your standard of "worth it" in one sentence before you draft, and check that every paragraph serves it. Our John Locke Essay Competition prep mentors spend the first sessions on exactly that kind of question choice and framing.
FAQ
Is "Was American Independence worth the bloodshed?" a good John Locke question to choose?
Yes, if you enjoy counterfactual reasoning and can handle numbers carefully. The evidence base is large and easy to get hold of, and the counterfactual (Canada, Australia, British abolition in 1833) gives you something concrete to test. The risk is writing a narrative of the war. The judges want a standard of value, a counterfactual you have actually examined, and a clear verdict, with the strongest objection met head on.
What should I read for the American Independence question?
Start with the full text of the Declaration of Independence, especially the "Prudence" clause and the grievances. Then read Gordon Wood's 2019 interview on the 1619 Project and Maya Jasanoff's Liberty's Exiles on the Loyalists. Add the Canadian Encyclopedia entries on the Durham Report, Confederation and the Royal Proclamation of 1763 for the counterfactual and for Native land.
How many people died in the American Revolutionary War?
On the American side, about 25,000 military deaths on the standard count and as many as 35,800 on another, according to Rick Atkinson, out of roughly a quarter of a million who served. He says the deaths were split roughly evenly among battle, disease and British prison ships. Reliable totals for British, German, Loyalist, Native and civilian deaths are much harder to find, so say which deaths you are counting.
Can I argue that American independence was not worth it?
Yes. The Institute rewards persuasive force and originality, not a particular answer. A "no" essay is strongest on two fronts: Native dispossession after 1783, and a careful case that Britain would have ended slavery sooner. Whatever you argue, state your standard of value early and deal with the best case against you, which for a "no" essay is the Canadian evidence that the peaceful road came after the war.
Related
The John Locke History questions page carries this question with its trap and argument lines, alongside the 2026 History questions for practice. All ten 2027 questions, with the expected dates, are in our John Locke Essay Competition 2027 questions tracker. Two related 2027 questions: what the feminisation of politics is doing to policy (Public Policy) and why are today's politicians so mediocre (Politics). For the standard the judges reward, read our analysis of the published past winning essays.
