Beyond the 13 Colonies: Philip Stern Invites Students to Rethink the Worlds of 1776

America wasn't founded in a bubble. 

That's the inspiration behind Worlds of 1776: The American Revolution in Global Perspective, a History course taught this fall by Professor Philip J. Stern. Using rare books and manuscripts from the David M. Rubenstein Book and Manuscript Library, students will research objects connected to the global history of 1776, present their findings and help curate a public exhibition in spring 2027. 

Part of the yearlong “Worlds of 1776” theme led by the Department of History, with programming through the department, the John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute and a Bass Connections project, the course asks students to look beyond the 13 colonies to the worldwide forces that shaped America’s founding. 

The world outside our shore 

While 1776 is often taught as a turning point in American history, Stern sees it as just one chapter in a much larger and longer narrative in which America's founding was never just an American story. 

“There was a lot going on in the world that affected what was happening in the colonies, and a lot of that was largely — or completely — unconnected from it,” Stern says. “To understand the Revolution, we really have to widen our perspective and look at what else was taking place beyond America’s shores.” 

Britain's mounting debt after the Seven Years' War helped shape imperial policy. Adam Smith's “The Wealth of Nations” examined commerce and empire, while Captain James Cook's final Pacific voyage reflected Europe's expanding global ambitions. As the Revolution unfolded, France entered the war in 1778, followed by Spain in 1779, transforming a colonial rebellion into an international conflict. 

“The world spilled into the American Revolution long before the Revolution ever spilled out to the world,” Stern shares.  

Even the Boston Tea Party, one of the Revolution’s most iconic moments, spills well past Boston Harbor when viewed through that global lens. "Where do you think all that tea came from?" Stern asks. 

The answers lie beyond Boston, in China, the East India Company and the global trading networks that connected Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. At the same time, colonial merchants were profiting by smuggling Dutch tea throughout the colonies, making cheaper East India Company imports a threat to their profit lines. The Boston Tea Party, Stern argues, was as much about global commerce and corporate power as revolutionary ideals. 

Body politic 

The East India Company introduces another theme of the course: corporations. For Stern, corporations weren't supporting players in the Revolution but central actors that shaped how the conflict emerged and unfolded. They were part of everyday life, and that ubiquity makes them impossible to ignore.  

In the 18th century, "corporation" meant far more than a business, as Stern discusses in his recent book “Empire, Incorporated.” Long before the term became synonymous with modern multinational giants like Amazon and ExxonMobil, it was woven into the fabric of the British Empire.  

“The term goes back to the medieval period and was a way of organizing groups of people by turning them into a single legal entity with the ability to own property, enter contracts and govern themselves over time,” Stern explains. “In the 18th century, corporations included towns, universities, churches and even entire colonies.” 

Colonial ventures such as the Massachusetts Bay and Virginia companies exercised political authority alongside commercial power, while cities, churches and colleges — including King's College (now Columbia University) and Dartmouth — were also corporations. Companies led the way in expanding American territorial claims, and as tensions with Britain grew, those charters became central to debates over authority and self-government.  

"Colonists argued that their communities had been built through their own labor and traditions of self-government rather than direct control by the English Crown," Stern says. “Jefferson echoed that idea in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence, writing that Americans had built their communities through their own blood and treasure.” 

Still others believed colonies, as kinds of corporations, should remain loyal and subordinate to the Crown. And as various “Tea Parties” across the colonies suggested, many rejected corporations and their monopolies as infringements on liberty and symbols of British power, even as the new United States embraced corporations in various forms.  

These aren't simply historical side notes, Stern notes. They're dilemmas, assumptions and overlooked questions students will challenge throughout the semester.   

Who’s who? It’s complicated 

The course also confronts the familiar patriot-versus-loyalist narrative. "In reality, many colonists wanted nothing to do with the war and wanted to remain neutral," Stern says.  

Many initially saw themselves as British subjects demanding what they believed were their rights. "Their complaint was that they weren't being treated ‘British enough,’ and independence emerged gradually, only after years of failed attempts to reconcile with the Crown,” he shares.  

Still others experienced the Revolution through unconsidered lenses. Indigenous nations saw another chapter in a long struggle over land and sovereignty. Caribbean colonies focused on protecting lucrative sugar economies — and their slave trade. European powers saw an opportunity to weaken Britain, while soldiers from places many Americans rarely associate with the Revolution, including German states and parts of South Asia, found themselves caught up in the fighting. 

“The 13 colonies were never isolated places marching inevitably toward nationhood,” Stern says. “They were porous societies connected by migration, commerce and empire to Europe, Africa, the Caribbean and Asia.” 

That's the perspective Stern hopes students carry with them long after the course ends. Rather than replacing one familiar narrative with another, he wants them to recognize that history depends on where you're standing, whose experiences you're considering and which questions you're willing to ask. Looking beyond the traditional cast of patriots and loyalists reveals a Revolution that was far more complicated, interconnected and contested than the one many learned in school. 

"The quickest way to misunderstand history is to assume everyone in the past thought alike," he says. "Just look around today, the person standing next to you in line for a coffee doesn't see the world exactly as you do — why would 1776 have been any different?"