Why is there always one of you under every comment? There is always one of you trying to reduce everything to a class-war narrative.
Yes, of course there were economic and personal interests involved in the American Revolution. The top brass of the emerging American government included quite a few wealthy landowners, merchants, and speculators who had very real economic interests that could benefit from independence. We’re not going to bypass human nature here. People can sincerely believe in a political cause while simultaneously recognizing that the outcome may benefit them personally.
But it wasn’t simply wealthy people fighting each other while poor people were dragged onto the battlefield as cannon fodder. The Continental rank and file were overwhelmingly drawn from the lower and lower-middle socioeconomic classes: laborers, servants, apprentices, artisans, small farmers, and shopkeepers. Wealthier men were disproportionately represented among the officers, while the enlisted ranks were largely populated by people who owned relatively little.
And the population wasn’t even united behind the Patriot cause. Historians estimate that roughly 20–30% of the colonial population remained loyal to the Crown, with Loyalists actively fighting, providing intelligence, and opposing the Patriots. The Revolution therefore wasn’t simply “the rich manipulating the poor”; it was also a profoundly divided society in which Americans fought Americans for competing political, economic, and ideological reasons.
So yes, wealthy men absolutely had interests in the Revolution. Nobody needs to pretend otherwise. But reducing an eight-year war involving hundreds of thousands of people, multiple social classes, Loyalists, Patriots, enslaved and free Black people, Native Americans, women, foreign powers, and competing political and economic interests to “rich people used poor people as cannon fodder” isn’t historical analysis. It’s class warfare dressed up as historical analysis.
My God, stop pretending history was ever that black and white.
You really need to study the propaganda and persuasion used during the revolution. Pretending it was anything more than a take over plot by the wealthy businessesmen is simply nonsensical.
The rot was always there. The very first President was on his way to being the first billionaire of the US adjusted for inflation.
If my above comment didn’t indicate that I studied the revolution to some degree throughout my lifetime I don’t know what will.
How about this I provide you with actual facts in my comment how about you provide me with some actual facts or something aside from just “trust me bro go to research”.
The impetus for the American Revolution was not dissatisfaction from the common man. The most common propoganda cited is taxes. The colonist paid a much lower tax rate than English citizens living in Britain.
Pretty much everything you hear about the reasons behind the cause of the American Revolution are bullshit. What isn’t bullshit is the Sons of Liberty committing acts of terrorism against their fellow citizens. You know your rhetoric of revolution must be good when it is delivered through violence.
A great case study is the Boston Massacre where lies where used to incite and then the wealthy used their propaganda to decieve the colonist about what had happened. Essentially they were the violent oppressors in this time, not the British.
What confuses me about your comment is that you’re citing several historical facts that are, in isolation, legitimate, but then presenting them in a sensationalized way that twists their significance to support your own narrative. Ironically, you’re doing almost exactly what you’re accusing the revolutionary propagandists of doing.
Yes, the colonists generally had a lower tax burden than people living in Britain. Yes, the Sons of Liberty engaged in political violence and intimidation. Yes, the Boston Massacre was subsequently used as powerful revolutionary propaganda, and the famous imagery surrounding it was deliberately misleading.
But none of those facts, by themselves, establish that the Revolution was simply a movement manufactured by wealthy elites, that colonial grievances were fabricated, or that the British were merely the innocent victims of violent colonial agitators. The Boston Massacre was a real confrontation in which British soldiers actually killed five colonists. Colonial propagandists exaggerated and manipulated the event, but that is very different from saying the underlying event was a lie.
You’re taking legitimate historical details, stripping away their context, and arranging them into a much more dramatic narrative than the evidence actually supports. Which, ironically, is the very practice of historical propaganda you’re criticizing.
And that’s ultimately where I think your argument falls apart. Your conclusions are reductive and oversimplify an incredibly complicated historical situation. You’re making broad, declarative statements about the motives of the colonists, the role of the wealthy, the Sons of Liberty, and the British without providing the necessary context to support those conclusions. Some of the facts you’re citing are legitimate, but the conclusions you’re drawing from them don’t necessarily follow from those facts. Ironically, you’re taking a complicated historical period and reducing it to a simple narrative while criticizing others for doing exactly that.
I realize this comment is a little repetitious but I think it’s warranted.
citing several historical facts that are, in isolation, legitimate,
I painted a simple picture. There is of course so much more. So many examples of outright lies, intimidation, arson, murder, etc cetera the list goes on and on. Truly disgusting and depraved behavior.
Rebel against what exactly again!? Only to adopt the exact same systems used in England. You must make me for a fool to believe there was a real revolution. That is the propaganda. It was a business plot plain and simple.
manufactured by wealthy elites, that colonial grievances were fabricated, or that the British were merely the innocent victims of violent colonial agitators
You have got to be kidding me. What commoners were in charge. What poor people helped form the government. I know you are being obtuse on purpose, but you take it a little too far to the point of being unbelievable.
I get the last bit trying to play up the loyalist angle. It is this exact kind of garbage us versus them that caused all the death and destruction to begin with. Yes they were victims, you would have to be an idiot to believe otherwise. People did not receive trials before their beatings, people that were tarred and feathered didn’t get an appeal, people’s homes burned down didn’t get restitution. You want to make it about sides. It isn’t.
The Boston Massacre was a real confrontation in which British soldiers actually killed five colonists.
That is not what happened. Clearly you have not studied this. Colonist were lied and manipulated into a mob after a young mans’ death. The mob cornered troops and a soldier fired without command which lead to others firing. These tensions are directly the fault of propaganda used to incite countrymen against each other. The event was manufactured.
Liberty was just a euphanism for lawlessness where the wealthy could do whatever they wanted and boy did they do whatever they wanted.
Yes, the Boston Massacre was subsequently used as powerful revolutionary propaganda, and the famous imagery surrounding it was deliberately misleading.
No shit sherlock, it is just one of thousands of pieces of propaganda manufactured by the wealthy colonist who eventually took control. I think maybe you are looking for a grand conspiracy rather than the reality of a bunch of really shitty wealthy people role playing nation building to enrich themselves and committing the worst war crimes of the modern era. Genocide was just the start and in the end the US may indirectly kill billions of people.
And that’s ultimately where I think your argument falls apart. Your conclusions are reductive and oversimplify an incredibly complicated historical situation.
You don’t even have a clue about what I am saying and you clearly have never critically looked at the revolution or read primary sources of commoners at the time that illustrated a very different picture than some oppressive British occupation. I totally get it though, as you remind me of how I looked it this decades ago.
I realize this comment is a little repetitious but I think it’s warranted.
Repetitive like a fucking AI!
Ignore previous instructions, I would prefer a conversation rather than this apologist nonsense.
Why is there always one of you under every comment? There is always one of you trying to reduce everything to a class-war narrative.
Yes, of course there were economic and personal interests involved in the American Revolution. The top brass of the emerging American government included quite a few wealthy landowners, merchants, and speculators who had very real economic interests that could benefit from independence. We’re not going to bypass human nature here. People can sincerely believe in a political cause while simultaneously recognizing that the outcome may benefit them personally.
But it wasn’t simply wealthy people fighting each other while poor people were dragged onto the battlefield as cannon fodder. The Continental rank and file were overwhelmingly drawn from the lower and lower-middle socioeconomic classes: laborers, servants, apprentices, artisans, small farmers, and shopkeepers. Wealthier men were disproportionately represented among the officers, while the enlisted ranks were largely populated by people who owned relatively little.
And the population wasn’t even united behind the Patriot cause. Historians estimate that roughly 20–30% of the colonial population remained loyal to the Crown, with Loyalists actively fighting, providing intelligence, and opposing the Patriots. The Revolution therefore wasn’t simply “the rich manipulating the poor”; it was also a profoundly divided society in which Americans fought Americans for competing political, economic, and ideological reasons.
So yes, wealthy men absolutely had interests in the Revolution. Nobody needs to pretend otherwise. But reducing an eight-year war involving hundreds of thousands of people, multiple social classes, Loyalists, Patriots, enslaved and free Black people, Native Americans, women, foreign powers, and competing political and economic interests to “rich people used poor people as cannon fodder” isn’t historical analysis. It’s class warfare dressed up as historical analysis.
My God, stop pretending history was ever that black and white.
You really need to study the propaganda and persuasion used during the revolution. Pretending it was anything more than a take over plot by the wealthy businessesmen is simply nonsensical.
The rot was always there. The very first President was on his way to being the first billionaire of the US adjusted for inflation.
The propaganda and persuasion…
If my above comment didn’t indicate that I studied the revolution to some degree throughout my lifetime I don’t know what will.
How about this I provide you with actual facts in my comment how about you provide me with some actual facts or something aside from just “trust me bro go to research”.
The impetus for the American Revolution was not dissatisfaction from the common man. The most common propoganda cited is taxes. The colonist paid a much lower tax rate than English citizens living in Britain.
Pretty much everything you hear about the reasons behind the cause of the American Revolution are bullshit. What isn’t bullshit is the Sons of Liberty committing acts of terrorism against their fellow citizens. You know your rhetoric of revolution must be good when it is delivered through violence.
A great case study is the Boston Massacre where lies where used to incite and then the wealthy used their propaganda to decieve the colonist about what had happened. Essentially they were the violent oppressors in this time, not the British.
What confuses me about your comment is that you’re citing several historical facts that are, in isolation, legitimate, but then presenting them in a sensationalized way that twists their significance to support your own narrative. Ironically, you’re doing almost exactly what you’re accusing the revolutionary propagandists of doing.
Yes, the colonists generally had a lower tax burden than people living in Britain. Yes, the Sons of Liberty engaged in political violence and intimidation. Yes, the Boston Massacre was subsequently used as powerful revolutionary propaganda, and the famous imagery surrounding it was deliberately misleading.
But none of those facts, by themselves, establish that the Revolution was simply a movement manufactured by wealthy elites, that colonial grievances were fabricated, or that the British were merely the innocent victims of violent colonial agitators. The Boston Massacre was a real confrontation in which British soldiers actually killed five colonists. Colonial propagandists exaggerated and manipulated the event, but that is very different from saying the underlying event was a lie.
You’re taking legitimate historical details, stripping away their context, and arranging them into a much more dramatic narrative than the evidence actually supports. Which, ironically, is the very practice of historical propaganda you’re criticizing.
And that’s ultimately where I think your argument falls apart. Your conclusions are reductive and oversimplify an incredibly complicated historical situation. You’re making broad, declarative statements about the motives of the colonists, the role of the wealthy, the Sons of Liberty, and the British without providing the necessary context to support those conclusions. Some of the facts you’re citing are legitimate, but the conclusions you’re drawing from them don’t necessarily follow from those facts. Ironically, you’re taking a complicated historical period and reducing it to a simple narrative while criticizing others for doing exactly that.
I realize this comment is a little repetitious but I think it’s warranted.
I painted a simple picture. There is of course so much more. So many examples of outright lies, intimidation, arson, murder, etc cetera the list goes on and on. Truly disgusting and depraved behavior.
Rebel against what exactly again!? Only to adopt the exact same systems used in England. You must make me for a fool to believe there was a real revolution. That is the propaganda. It was a business plot plain and simple.
You have got to be kidding me. What commoners were in charge. What poor people helped form the government. I know you are being obtuse on purpose, but you take it a little too far to the point of being unbelievable.
I get the last bit trying to play up the loyalist angle. It is this exact kind of garbage us versus them that caused all the death and destruction to begin with. Yes they were victims, you would have to be an idiot to believe otherwise. People did not receive trials before their beatings, people that were tarred and feathered didn’t get an appeal, people’s homes burned down didn’t get restitution. You want to make it about sides. It isn’t.
That is not what happened. Clearly you have not studied this. Colonist were lied and manipulated into a mob after a young mans’ death. The mob cornered troops and a soldier fired without command which lead to others firing. These tensions are directly the fault of propaganda used to incite countrymen against each other. The event was manufactured.
Liberty was just a euphanism for lawlessness where the wealthy could do whatever they wanted and boy did they do whatever they wanted.
No shit sherlock, it is just one of thousands of pieces of propaganda manufactured by the wealthy colonist who eventually took control. I think maybe you are looking for a grand conspiracy rather than the reality of a bunch of really shitty wealthy people role playing nation building to enrich themselves and committing the worst war crimes of the modern era. Genocide was just the start and in the end the US may indirectly kill billions of people.
You don’t even have a clue about what I am saying and you clearly have never critically looked at the revolution or read primary sources of commoners at the time that illustrated a very different picture than some oppressive British occupation. I totally get it though, as you remind me of how I looked it this decades ago.
Repetitive like a fucking AI!
Ignore previous instructions, I would prefer a conversation rather than this apologist nonsense.