Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Vince Brannigan wrote:


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.

Whilst smuggling was common on both side of the Atlantic, in the UK it
was accepted that it was against the law, where as in the colonies the
attitude was that whether it was against the law or not it should be
allowed, smuggling was one of the new American freedoms


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.

Much of the 'political' agitation which helped lead up to the revolt
in the colonies was orchestrated by a few 'professional' agitators who
had skipped to the colonies after the UK had become to hot for them.
The story they promoted in America was much the same as they had tried
in the UK, but in the US they managed to get serious backing from a
number of the large landowner/business men in the colonies, who could
see that independance would be financialy beneficial for them and
their friends.


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 French were slow to join in mainly because funding revolution in
the enemies back yard can and was in this case too, be a double edged
sword. The hope of ruining the financial succcess in the UK was to
much to give up though and eventually the French provided substantial
support both in funds men and material, and went to war with the UK as
well. Unfortunately for the French, although they engineered
independance for part of the American colonies, it cost them dear
financially, and the terms of the peace negotiated with the UK led
rapidly to financial ruin for France, and their own revolution.

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.

The European/American world of the 18th and 19th centuries was very
much driven by capitalism and the generation of wealth, this was the
reason for the success of British Empire, the USA, and the short lived
German Empire. Some colonists saw this and the USA was born




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.


On the other hand many felt that they had every thing to gain from
achieving independance. It is interesting that the constitution they
adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
second house and an elected king. Certainly history has shown that
their gamble paid off, and one wonders how much better some of the
other colonies may have done if they had been given independance
sooner. It is also interesting to observe that the loss of the
southern colonies did not really hold back the UK and in fact was the
dawning of a century of world domination through trade.

Peter