Gandhi said that the nonviolent activist, like any soldier, had to be ready to die for the cause. And in fact, during India’s struggle for independence, hundreds of Indians were killed by the British.
The difference was that the nonviolent activist, while willing to die, was never willing to kill.
Gandhi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward’s way: to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms. Gandhi said this was better than acceptance or running away.
But the third way, he said, was best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight solely by nonviolent means.
(snip)
To oppose British rule, the colonists used many tactics amazingly like Gandhi’s—and according to Sharp, they used these techniques with more skill and sophistication than anyone else before the time of Gandhi.
For instance, to resist the British Stamp Act, the colonists widely refused to pay for the official stamp required to appear on publications and legal documents—a case of civil disobedience and tax refusal, both used later by Gandhi. Boycotts of British imports were organized to protest the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts, and the so-called Intolerable Acts. The campaign against the latter was organized by the First Continental Congress, which was really a nonviolent action organization.
The colonists used another strategy later adopted by Gandhi—setting up parallel institutions to take over functions of government—and had far greater success with it than Gandhi ever did. In fact, according to Sharp, colonial organizations had largely taken over control from the British in most of the colonies before a shot was fired.
http://www.markshep.com/nonviolence/Myths.html
Oh we can't, they're all dead. Whoopsie!
Wha-wa-what? The Declaration of Resolves from the first CC, which was favored over the more "peaceful" Galloway proposal, was met with Lord North's attempt to create division among the colonists against the Continental Congress through a “peace” conciliation passed by Parliament. The colonists did not bite since the Battles of Lexington and Concord let their actions speak for themselves. That was success in the authors eyes? The most bang for the buck that the Committees of Correspondence provided was getting diplomatic practice for when the colonists met with France in order to squash the British, in a VIOLENT manner. The British had no intention at negotiations, especially by a rogue Congress (And the radicals knew that).
B. Franklin, who spent decades trying to “heal the relationship” with the British and angling for peace knew even before L and C the the poop would hit the fan. The Second CC was full of debate about independence. The last attempt by the majority of moderates that controlled the CC, in the form of the Olive Branch Petition, was met with heavy cynicism mainly by John Adams (Who wisely started making war preparations the minute the petition passed) The “radicals” prevailed as the colonists VIOLENTLY won their independence. The attempt at peace from 1754-1775, was so successful that the British government laughed it off because at that time in history, unlike the early-mid 20th century, they could (Until violence shut them up).