Vince Brannigan wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:

Smuggling was indeed a common undertaking in port cities all along the
eastern seaboard. Some fairly prominent people benefited from the "trade"
as well.


so smuggling is accepted as a description

A description of some activities in the American colonies. Not a characterization
of the pro-Revolution crowd.

Smuggling was rampant and England as well at the same time. Prominent people
also benefited from it, as they did from piracy as well. Doesn't make England
an nation of pirates, or any opposition to the crown driven by it.

It's a lame, one dimensional characterization.

Slave owners were by no means the majority, even in the south. Independence
from Britain would have had little effect on the American slave market, just
as it had little effect even when the US finally got around to banning the
import of slaves.

The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
their benefit./

Fair enough. But if you're talking revolution, and a very risky one at that,
you'd better have more than the landed, propertied gentry involved. You need
some help from common people who think the activity is going to get them more
than just killed, imprisoned or financially destitute.

And of course, the French were originally content to watch from the sidelines
until there was actually some possibility of success. That didn't happen
until at least Saratoga. The French had nothing to do with starting the
American Revolution except in providing theory from philosophical types.

sure, but so what. they suppied material aid when it was useful

The OP had stated the revolution was a "French funded insurrection". It was
not significantly funded by them until well into the event. If you're trying
to decide to be loyalist or rebel, French participation has little to do with
it.

The position that the American Revolution was largely driven by a small group
of self-interested people (better money making possibilities with
independence) basically follows the political thinking of liberal or
downright Marxist thinking academics.

nonsense. it long predates marxism and the reality of loyalist elements
makes analysis critical.

Presence of loyalist elements merely gives the conflict a "civil war" component.
You revolt against someone. In largely free, and reasonably prosperous colonial
society of 1770's, a significant number of people choosing to remain loyal would
not be unusual.

Under this paradigm of human political/economic/social action, no one does
anything without clear beneficial economic gain. Only the "socialist man"
is able to rise above this selfishness because the people own the means of
production, and workers can no longer be exploited. The bad things capitalism
does (and capitalist governments) is thus no longer possible.

Strawman crap. as one example Prize money drove the Royal navy officer
corps.

It's complete bunk! Not a strawman at all though. Just an observation on a
significant intellectual force driving the interpretation of American history
over the past 30 years.

The fact is the America of 1770 had probably the largest percentage of middle
class population of any place on earth, doesn't lend itself well to risky
propositions like treason against the most powerful country on earth. An
extremely high percentage of Americans were property owners.

no they were not. Butr even if they were they were in itofr the money.

You're wrong. The American colonies had a very large middle class. A high
percentage of property owners, particularly farmers, but also tradesmen and
professionals. It's something very few societies have been able to accomplish.

This is very important in interpreting the motivation in favor of revolution.
American colonists by and large were not landless, propertyless, angry people
with nothing to lose by going against a powerful colonial establishment.


SMH