Or is the variable of the government's use of force the difference?
Maybe they felt there was some sanctuary being physically distant from the monarchy, and it gave them the confidence to make a stand?
Comments (20)
sorted by:
Or is the variable of the government's use of force the difference?
Maybe they felt there was some sanctuary being physically distant from the monarchy, and it gave them the confidence to make a stand?
I may be able to give a little insight, My direct ancestor was a Minute Man Patriot that fought the Loyalist Red Coats at Kings Mountain in 1780 with two of his cousins and kicked their asses bad. The attitude is in my DNA. The "long train of abuses" going on in the 1700's largely amounted to British taxation of Colonial Commerce. It evolved very fast with more and more direct tyrannical control. The tipping point about Taxation without Representation was when King George banned guns by the Colonists and sent Red Coat forces to the Colonies. That was early 1770's. That triggered our push for official Independence from the Crown. The ocean expanse was very relevant. The King was 3000 miles away dictating to Colonies and we had always felt we were pretty much on own own. After King's Mountain, Cornwallis turned back south to Charlestown and that turned the tide of the war. He was not able to re-enforce the Northern Redcoat regiments. We fought from "Tree and Brush" (British Reports) with our Kentucky long rifles, it was on like Donkey Kong.
Not much has actually changed over 260 years, we have Globalist Tyranny in Europe trying to dictate (the Reset). To me, the reasons are the same, we are "The Grand Experiment" in Freedom and Liberty. No civilization before or since has centered on Individual Freedom except the United States of America.
Edit Tidbit: Daniel Boone himself organized the Colonial Militia in that region, Kentucky and Carolina.
I think my purpose is to brainstorm on how to rediscover that dynamic. Consider, if the American "idea" originated in England, and there was no "new world" across the Atlantic, could the movement have succeeded if the monarchy was right on top of them? Crazy as it may seem, I think that's the situation now. . . crazy, because we represent those who want to uphold Constitutional law and national sovereignty. It's like all the elements and roles are inverted.
Consider, to me the Globalist Tyranny is equivalent to King George and the bozo' Americans who support it are equivalent to the Colonial Loyalists who fought for King George.
The US is equivalent to the Colonies who forge their own path. The Crown wasn't right on top of the Colonies until late 1760's-70's. The prior 100 years we forged our own way as British Subjects, pretty much left alone except for Commerce taxation by the Crown.
But the geographical dynamic is different, and I think it was a major part of the success of the AR. We don't have that advantage today. And not only that, but we are a socially dysfunctional people now as well.