Yes, and rich Americans who wanted to get richer :) Such is war, so many times.
I know there were true patriots but men and their sons dying to stop tax, and stop harboring soldiers and to move over mountains? Dying over eight deaths at Lexington? People were inflamed by those who stood to benefit is what I have heard. But I agree forbidd…
Yes, and rich Americans who wanted to get richer :) Such is war, so many times.
I know there were true patriots but men and their sons dying to stop tax, and stop harboring soldiers and to move over mountains? Dying over eight deaths at Lexington? People were inflamed by those who stood to benefit is what I have heard. But I agree forbidding westward expansion was the worst thing among grievances other than deaths at Lexington.
(Don't mind me too much - you know I wish I could be English. But I'd not have been traitor to those around me if I'd been in the American Revolution.)
Actually most of the founders were worse off materially and otherwise post Yorktown. Many had substantial Royal commissions, obviously forfeited when they joined in revolting against the British. I can attest to this personally with several of my own and my husband's ancestors, among whom are members of the first Supreme Court and signers.
And, despite the propaganda of current "elites" it wasn't that long ago that we were far less corrupt and those in charge did not get rich from office. The percentage of corrupt politicians has skyrocketed along with the rise in the federal budget.
You are right about many of the signers. I did not mean the signers. I meant people with business interests who would profit. I was told this by the best USA guide I'd ever had- he had academic qualification as well as guiding - at the historic site where Washington crossed the Delaware. It rang true. But I should have couched it as "I've heard from a source think reliable... rather than just "rich Americans...such is war". - It just made sense to me, war being in the interests of many rich people (not all).
I might be overdoing this I know people fought after heaving about Lexington, or feeling angry about taxes, or various reasons. I think they were "enflamed". But I agree it is complex.
OK, here for instance is just one case, but it could represent the type of thing that went on. Robert Morris, shipping line owner, the "financier of the American Revolution":
<<<"The Willing Morris & Company became quite successful because of several methods that saw them monopolize the industry. Willing and Morris sought to insure other cargo vessels and aggressively pursued trade with the Mediterranean and India. The combined effects opened new markets to Philadelphia and North America while simultaneously making both men very wealthy. .....He opposed the Stamp Act of 1765 and the following measures of Parliament that continued to levy a burden upon American shipping vessels. When the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in 1774, Morris was not elected as a delegate but held court with many of the arriving members who sought his counsel and opinion on how to navigate petitioning for a repeal of the Intolerable Acts. However, Morris was appointed to the Committee of Safety by the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly in 1775 following the outbreak of the American Revolution in Massachusetts. ">>>
After the Revolution he was still doing very well financially. I did not read the whole thing. It is a complex case - he really wanted to negotiate with the King at first, and really not wrong to want to stop a tax that is hurting your business, but it is one example of a rich person with influence.
Yes, and rich Americans who wanted to get richer :) Such is war, so many times.
I know there were true patriots but men and their sons dying to stop tax, and stop harboring soldiers and to move over mountains? Dying over eight deaths at Lexington? People were inflamed by those who stood to benefit is what I have heard. But I agree forbidding westward expansion was the worst thing among grievances other than deaths at Lexington.
(Don't mind me too much - you know I wish I could be English. But I'd not have been traitor to those around me if I'd been in the American Revolution.)
Actually most of the founders were worse off materially and otherwise post Yorktown. Many had substantial Royal commissions, obviously forfeited when they joined in revolting against the British. I can attest to this personally with several of my own and my husband's ancestors, among whom are members of the first Supreme Court and signers.
And, despite the propaganda of current "elites" it wasn't that long ago that we were far less corrupt and those in charge did not get rich from office. The percentage of corrupt politicians has skyrocketed along with the rise in the federal budget.
You are right about many of the signers. I did not mean the signers. I meant people with business interests who would profit. I was told this by the best USA guide I'd ever had- he had academic qualification as well as guiding - at the historic site where Washington crossed the Delaware. It rang true. But I should have couched it as "I've heard from a source think reliable... rather than just "rich Americans...such is war". - It just made sense to me, war being in the interests of many rich people (not all).
Well I"d like to see your source's bibliography. The story of the founding is far more complex than that simple statement.
Thanks for responding
I might be overdoing this I know people fought after heaving about Lexington, or feeling angry about taxes, or various reasons. I think they were "enflamed". But I agree it is complex.
OK, here for instance is just one case, but it could represent the type of thing that went on. Robert Morris, shipping line owner, the "financier of the American Revolution":
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/robert-morris-financier-american-revolution
<<<"The Willing Morris & Company became quite successful because of several methods that saw them monopolize the industry. Willing and Morris sought to insure other cargo vessels and aggressively pursued trade with the Mediterranean and India. The combined effects opened new markets to Philadelphia and North America while simultaneously making both men very wealthy. .....He opposed the Stamp Act of 1765 and the following measures of Parliament that continued to levy a burden upon American shipping vessels. When the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in 1774, Morris was not elected as a delegate but held court with many of the arriving members who sought his counsel and opinion on how to navigate petitioning for a repeal of the Intolerable Acts. However, Morris was appointed to the Committee of Safety by the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly in 1775 following the outbreak of the American Revolution in Massachusetts. ">>>
After the Revolution he was still doing very well financially. I did not read the whole thing. It is a complex case - he really wanted to negotiate with the King at first, and really not wrong to want to stop a tax that is hurting your business, but it is one example of a rich person with influence.
Yes I too would have been a royalist in that war and a rebel in the one that followed.