A few different points...
Two points:
1. Going back the the American revolution, it wasn't a revolution; it was a revolt. A revolution would require a change in the political landscape and while that was the result it was not really the spark that initiated the action. Most colonists were only demanding that their rights as Englishmen be recognized. An Englishman already had the right to vote for their representatives in parliament. our complaint was that we were being charged like Englishmen but not receiving the same benefits. "Taxation without Representation." The absolute monarchy had been abolished for almost a hundred years in England. So while the system that resulted was "revolutionary" from the perspective that it did not revolve around a constitutional monarchy, discontent amongst the colonists about being denied the rights they felt they already had was the impetuous for action.
Unfortunately, my second point will have to wait. The dogs need to go for a walk.:D
Life is just a bowl of cherries...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheCurmudgeon
...For that matter, you pretty much needed to be landed to have rights. Even after the drafting of the Constitution in 1789 we still were not a "free" nation under Freedom House standards.
We reinterpret events to met the narrative that we prefer. Otherwise the colonists were simply a bunch of arrogant stingy tax evaders.
Many of the Colonists were indeed stingy tax evaders. As many or more had other causes. The Southern (and New Hampshire) Scotch Irish just didn't like the British (or the wealthy Virginians and they thought rather haughty New England Colonists -- but they disliked the British more).
Freedom House did not exist in 1775 or 1789. You cannot credibly judge events and mores of over 200 years ago by today's standards.
That is indeed reinterpreting events to meet a narrative one prefers... ;)