At one point, the American people fought for their freedom from what they considered an oppressive and tyrannical authority: the English Crown. The American flag, in that context, came to represent resistance to arbitrary authority and the idea that government ultimately derives its legitimacy from the people.
And the Founding Fathers were not, as Prager would have you believe, a monolithic group of devout, orthodox Christians. Many were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, Deism, rationalism, and religious skepticism. Some rejected core doctrines of Christianity outright. Calling them atheist would be historically inaccurate, but portraying them as a uniformly God-fearing Christian movement is equally misleading.
The irony is that when some Americans look at that same flag today, they see it as a symbol of the very kind of powerful, oppressive authority that the American Revolution was fought against. The difference is that ordinary people today don’t have the same practical means of challenging their government that the revolutionaries ultimately resorted to.
So if anyone needs to do a little more historical research, Prager might want to start with the people who actually founded the country.
What you have detailed is a myth or propaganda about the US, not what actually happened. There was no fight for freedom unless you believe freedom equals massive amounts of innocents dying for the wealthy.
You are applying modernity to history, while that is perfectly fine when it comes to quite a bit you should always consider the context within you are speaking. For all the flaws of the founding of the US namely slavery on the front of things like voting rights and who actually led things it was and still in some ways (at least in theory if not in practice) an improvement on the British structure of the time, the continued existence of the House of Lords is a travesty against sanity hell even the fucken US Senate is better than that and the Senate needs to be burned to the ground.
You can believe the propaganda of you like. Just don’t come all confused as to why the wealthy call all the shots and abuse the shit out of Americans and everyone else in the world. Your point of view is why so many people are confused as to why we ended up this way. Were were completely corrupt from the beginning and used terrorism, violence, lies, etc to manipulate the people. The Sons of Liberty bombed, tortured, and murdered innocents in their quest to take over the country. You are simply naive, it is okay.
I recently read “People’s History of the United States” and it paints a much grimmer picture of the early US. It didn’t take long for the alien and sedition acts to be written, despite the grand language about freedom. There’s also many, many, years of labor asking for more than dirt and being violently suppressed.
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 irony is that when some Americans look at that same flag today, they see it as a symbol of the very kind of powerful, oppressive authority that the American Revolution was fought against.
And, unfortunately, a lot of people around the world look at it that way too.
At one point, the American people fought for their freedom from what they considered an oppressive and tyrannical authority: the English Crown.
Some did. Some were merely opportunists who didn’t want the government getting in their way. Most of the US founding fathers were smugglers and land speculators. They didn’t like that the US had ended the French and Indian war by promising that in exchange for peace, their colony would stop expanding westwards. That pissed off the founders who had bought land to the west and wanted a return on their investments.
Other American people were just fine with the arrangement with the crown. They didn’t want a brand new government, they thought things were fine as they were. These people were either killed or driven off their land by the rebels who wanted a new government, and were forced to head to England or up into Canada.
Just look at the other places that didn’t consider the British monarch to be an oppressive tyrant: Canada, Australia, NZ, etc. Did they suffer under the grinding boot of the king and lead miserable lives as a result? Were they forced to hand all their wealth over to England? Hardly. Within a few decades the British gave their local governments more power. Now they all merely have the king as a figurehead and are fully controlled by the people.
Meanwhile, the rebel colonists in the US went only a couple of decades before descending into a civil war. Plus, there’s the war of 1812 which, in large part, was due to these people who famously hated tyrants and oppression ignoring treaties and killing off natives so that they could expand westward.
It seems to me that if you look past all the propaganda that is part of the US school system, the British king being a “tyrant” was more of a convenient excuse rather than the actual legitimate reason for the rebellion.
Just look at the other places that didn’t consider the British monarch to be an oppressive tyrant: Canada, Australia, NZ, etc. Did they suffer under the grinding boot of the king and lead miserable lives as a result? Were they forced to hand all their wealth over to England?
While I completely understand and mostly agree with your point, speaking as a Canadian millions of people suffered under the grinding boot of the king and were forced to give up not only their wealth, but also their languages and cultures. The genocide of the indigenous peoples in Canada is an atrocious part of our history, and the last Residential School wasn’t closed down until the 1990s.
Part of the American independence movement was backlash against the result of the “French and Indian Wars”, in which the British agreed to limit their westward expansion.
Sure, the British (and early Canadians) did some horrible things to people they saw as less worthy than themselves. But, in this case, the “oppressive tyrant” was less brutal towards the Indigenous than the American colonists wanted. The monarch actively held the colonists back from what they wanted to do, and that’s why what happened to the Indigenous people in the US is generally much worse than what happened to them in Canada.
The residential schools were awful, but the mindset that led to them was “these savages can be civilized as long as we remove them from the terrible influences as children and have good, catholic nuns break them of their savage ways and make them into good British subjects”. Meanwhile, the US solution was “these savages have good land, let’s drive them off that land and take that land for ourselves”.
From the viewpoint of someone in the 21st century, both of these are awful. But, from the viewpoint of the 19th century, one is definitely a more worthy undertaking.
What I find interesting is that all of this was happening after a civil war more bloody per capita than the First World War, the trial and execution of a king, a period of rather repressive republican rule, a restoration of the monarchy, and yet another revolution/coup which established monarchs couldn’t rule without Parliament’s consent. Part of the reason Britain wasn’t revolutionary later on like France was because multiple revolutions had already happened in the 17th century. The Americans were by the point of the revolution arguing George III was an absolutist and a tyrant, but that form of monarchy had already had its back broken in an English and later British context by the time the American colonies were being settled in large numbers (with some exceptions). It was an accusation much more apt towards say the French king at the time who in fact supported the Americans, and we all know how that eventually went for the Ancien Regime.
The colonist’s grievance was actually more with Parliament for the most part, they actively wanted the king to intercede on their behalf. George III wasn’t willing to do that being a constitutional monarch, which ironically got him labelled a tyrant.
The English crown was limiting their ability to oppress others you mean.
It was as noble as the Confederacy, to say, not at all.
For Canada, even though everyone was against it, the BNA act also allowed us to throw out old treaties and give us terms more appealing to the ruling class.
At one point, the American people fought for their freedom from what they considered an oppressive and tyrannical authority: the English Crown. The American flag, in that context, came to represent resistance to arbitrary authority and the idea that government ultimately derives its legitimacy from the people.
And the Founding Fathers were not, as Prager would have you believe, a monolithic group of devout, orthodox Christians. Many were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, Deism, rationalism, and religious skepticism. Some rejected core doctrines of Christianity outright. Calling them atheist would be historically inaccurate, but portraying them as a uniformly God-fearing Christian movement is equally misleading.
The irony is that when some Americans look at that same flag today, they see it as a symbol of the very kind of powerful, oppressive authority that the American Revolution was fought against. The difference is that ordinary people today don’t have the same practical means of challenging their government that the revolutionaries ultimately resorted to.
So if anyone needs to do a little more historical research, Prager might want to start with the people who actually founded the country.
What you have detailed is a myth or propaganda about the US, not what actually happened. There was no fight for freedom unless you believe freedom equals massive amounts of innocents dying for the wealthy.
You are applying modernity to history, while that is perfectly fine when it comes to quite a bit you should always consider the context within you are speaking. For all the flaws of the founding of the US namely slavery on the front of things like voting rights and who actually led things it was and still in some ways (at least in theory if not in practice) an improvement on the British structure of the time, the continued existence of the House of Lords is a travesty against sanity hell even the fucken US Senate is better than that and the Senate needs to be burned to the ground.
You can believe the propaganda of you like. Just don’t come all confused as to why the wealthy call all the shots and abuse the shit out of Americans and everyone else in the world. Your point of view is why so many people are confused as to why we ended up this way. Were were completely corrupt from the beginning and used terrorism, violence, lies, etc to manipulate the people. The Sons of Liberty bombed, tortured, and murdered innocents in their quest to take over the country. You are simply naive, it is okay.
I recently read “People’s History of the United States” and it paints a much grimmer picture of the early US. It didn’t take long for the alien and sedition acts to be written, despite the grand language about freedom. There’s also many, many, years of labor asking for more than dirt and being violently suppressed.
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.
And, unfortunately, a lot of people around the world look at it that way too.
Some did. Some were merely opportunists who didn’t want the government getting in their way. Most of the US founding fathers were smugglers and land speculators. They didn’t like that the US had ended the French and Indian war by promising that in exchange for peace, their colony would stop expanding westwards. That pissed off the founders who had bought land to the west and wanted a return on their investments.
Other American people were just fine with the arrangement with the crown. They didn’t want a brand new government, they thought things were fine as they were. These people were either killed or driven off their land by the rebels who wanted a new government, and were forced to head to England or up into Canada.
Just look at the other places that didn’t consider the British monarch to be an oppressive tyrant: Canada, Australia, NZ, etc. Did they suffer under the grinding boot of the king and lead miserable lives as a result? Were they forced to hand all their wealth over to England? Hardly. Within a few decades the British gave their local governments more power. Now they all merely have the king as a figurehead and are fully controlled by the people.
Meanwhile, the rebel colonists in the US went only a couple of decades before descending into a civil war. Plus, there’s the war of 1812 which, in large part, was due to these people who famously hated tyrants and oppression ignoring treaties and killing off natives so that they could expand westward.
It seems to me that if you look past all the propaganda that is part of the US school system, the British king being a “tyrant” was more of a convenient excuse rather than the actual legitimate reason for the rebellion.
While I completely understand and mostly agree with your point, speaking as a Canadian millions of people suffered under the grinding boot of the king and were forced to give up not only their wealth, but also their languages and cultures. The genocide of the indigenous peoples in Canada is an atrocious part of our history, and the last Residential School wasn’t closed down until the 1990s.
Part of the American independence movement was backlash against the result of the “French and Indian Wars”, in which the British agreed to limit their westward expansion.
Sure, the British (and early Canadians) did some horrible things to people they saw as less worthy than themselves. But, in this case, the “oppressive tyrant” was less brutal towards the Indigenous than the American colonists wanted. The monarch actively held the colonists back from what they wanted to do, and that’s why what happened to the Indigenous people in the US is generally much worse than what happened to them in Canada.
The residential schools were awful, but the mindset that led to them was “these savages can be civilized as long as we remove them from the terrible influences as children and have good, catholic nuns break them of their savage ways and make them into good British subjects”. Meanwhile, the US solution was “these savages have good land, let’s drive them off that land and take that land for ourselves”.
From the viewpoint of someone in the 21st century, both of these are awful. But, from the viewpoint of the 19th century, one is definitely a more worthy undertaking.
What I find interesting is that all of this was happening after a civil war more bloody per capita than the First World War, the trial and execution of a king, a period of rather repressive republican rule, a restoration of the monarchy, and yet another revolution/coup which established monarchs couldn’t rule without Parliament’s consent. Part of the reason Britain wasn’t revolutionary later on like France was because multiple revolutions had already happened in the 17th century. The Americans were by the point of the revolution arguing George III was an absolutist and a tyrant, but that form of monarchy had already had its back broken in an English and later British context by the time the American colonies were being settled in large numbers (with some exceptions). It was an accusation much more apt towards say the French king at the time who in fact supported the Americans, and we all know how that eventually went for the Ancien Regime.
The colonist’s grievance was actually more with Parliament for the most part, they actively wanted the king to intercede on their behalf. George III wasn’t willing to do that being a constitutional monarch, which ironically got him labelled a tyrant.
The English crown was limiting their ability to oppress others you mean.
It was as noble as the Confederacy, to say, not at all.
For Canada, even though everyone was against it, the BNA act also allowed us to throw out old treaties and give us terms more appealing to the ruling class.