Was the American Revolution right or left

The political spectrum, far left is an absolute ruler, far right is total anarchy. What does that make the American Revolution?

Moving away from the English monarchy would be moving to the right
But
In theory, while nothing would change in each states’ day to day governing, the fact that they state would increase their power, by being the final say in laws, would be a move to the left.

I would say it was both a left and right wing war, but I am not sure if they colonist would have seen the left leanings at that time.

It was neither.
The wings were made up much later.

Americans banded together to fight against oppression from an out of control oppressive government- something they aught to be doing again.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson
The conscious distinction of "right" and "left" really begins with the French revolution.
The only workable definition of the difference is that the left wants change, the right wants no change or less radical change.
I think your definition is quite the wrong way round. A despot, by definition, wants the status quo to remain in place, and left-wingers will be attempting to overthrow him.
Anarchism, on the other hand, is one of the most radical forms of change that is possible, and anarchists would regard themselves and be regarded as left-wingers.

The American Revolution was about changing the state of affairs, and found sympathisers in England amongst people who wanted to change things. I think that settles the question.

Kind of forgot about the tax issue there didn’t you? You know, excessive taxes. Where does that lie today since your trying to put 1700 politics into a 2018 box?

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Well, the foundational principles of the Constitution have always intended each state to function like it's own country (i.e. states rights), but to be united on certain issues such as war and International trade. So, there's no "theory" about it, that's the way it was intended to be. Additionally, this is why the Union is not a true democracy (which many today do not understand), but rather a 'republic' of 50 individual nations.

This is why some of the things we see in the news every day are so troubling. We're so far away from what the Constitution envisioned it's almost laughable rendering the Constitution a relic of the past.

Philosophically, it was a move to the right, taking power from a dictator and handing it to the masses. Self governance falls short of becoming the dragon of tyranny they meant to slay. If self governance becomes tyrannical we have more a mental disorder than a political state. (see Illinois)

originally posted by: Lab4Us
Kind of forgot about the tax issue there didn’t you? You know, excessive taxes. Where does that lie today since your trying to put 1700 politics into a 2018 box?

It was not about excessive taxes but about "No taxation without representation" is a slogan originating during the 1700s that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies, which was one of the major causes of the American Revolution.

If anything, that would fall more to the left fighting back.
Corporate Lobbyists and State Authoritarians is the status quo today and get all the representation while the rest of the tax payers get none.

The aristocracy has all the power today while the rest of the people have none.

Was the American revolution right or left ?

The Crown was the left telling the right how much money they could have, what rights they had, and they weren't allowed to own GUNZ.

American colonials had to beg,borrow from France, and other Eu countries to wage their Make America a beginning campaign.

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Lab4Us
Kind of forgot about the tax issue there didn’t you? You know, excessive taxes. Where does that lie today since your trying to put 1700 politics into a 2018 box?

It was not about excessive taxes but about "No taxation without representation" is a slogan originating during the 1700s that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies, which was one of the major causes of the American Revolution.

If anything, that would fall more to the left fighting back.
Corporate Lobbyists and State Authoritarians is the status quo today and get all the representation while the rest of the tax payers get none.

The aristocracy has all the power today while the rest of the people have none.

The slogan was started because of the Stamp Act... a new tax.

I see someone has forgotten about the Boston Tea party as well.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Lab4Us
Kind of forgot about the tax issue there didn’t you? You know, excessive taxes. Where does that lie today since your trying to put 1700 politics into a 2018 box?

It was not about excessive taxes but about "No taxation without representation" is a slogan originating during the 1700s that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies, which was one of the major causes of the American Revolution.

If anything, that would fall more to the left fighting back.
Corporate Lobbyists and State Authoritarians is the status quo today and get all the representation while the rest of the tax payers get none.

The aristocracy has all the power today while the rest of the people have none.

The slogan was started because of the Stamp Act... a new tax.

I see someone has forgotten about the Boston Tea party as well.

Rioting and destroying business property I thought aligns more with the left?


340 chests of British East India Company Tea, weighing over 92,000 pounds (roughly 46 tons), onboard the Beaver, Dartmouth, and Eleanor were smashed open by the Sons of Liberty armed with an assortment of axes and dumped into Boston Harbor the night of December 16, 1773.

It was neither.

A bourgeoise revolution; the founders found themselves owning huge tracts of land, that, in the mother country, would have qualified them for the gentry--the lowest rung of the ruling classes. Truly rich men like Washington and Jefferson would have been peers in the House of Commons or maybe even Lords in washingtons case.

The Rebels formed their own parliaments that look democratic to our eyes--until we remember that you had to own a certain amount of acreage to vote in the colonies.

The British East India company purchased Tea from China to sell to American Colonys in order to rake in the bucks.

Sound Familiar?

So if Americans have a problem with corporations buying stuff from China to sell here, does that mean we can hijack a container vessel and dump all the containers into the sea?

No, people would say, dont buy the items then.
How come that did not apply with the Tea?

Were people twisting their arms to purchase the Tea from the East India Company?

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Give the left vs right shlit a rest for a day.

Reading so far, I weep for what passes as the American Education system now...


First things first, study the picture.




The Federalists were Conservative Liberals on the chart, whereas the Anti-Federalists would be considered Laissez Faire Liberals.

Look how far left the Republicans are and current DNC policy places them as Neo-Liberals currently. Yet they are delving more into the elective socialism area ranging between Democratic Socialism (FDR, Bernie Sanders) to Progressive Socialism (Obama, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). It is VERY important to note that all three are more left of the GOP, they are also more Authoritarian.

The East India Tea Company petitioned for the the exclusive right to directly sell tea throughout the UK including the American Colonies under a tax stamp (similar to the tax stamp for growing Marijuana/Hemp in the US or buying a fully automatic firearm/silencer). This stamp was later applied to post cards, playing cards, etc. the Stamp Act allowed them to bypass the tea auction houses in England where all other tea had to go first before coming to the colonies. Hence being fresher, East India Tea tasted better and cost more.

In any case the additional taxes without proper representation was the big grief, because in the past subjects of the crown paid no taxes unless they had representation in the House of Lords.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Reading so far, I weep for what passes as the American Education system now...


First things first, study the picture.

The Federalists were Conservative Liberals on the chart, whereas the Anti-Federalists would be considered Laissez Faire Liberals.

Look how far left the Republicans are and current DNC policy places them as Neo-Liberals currently. Yet they are delving more into the elective socialism area ranging between Democratic Socialism (FDR, Bernie Sanders) to Progressive Socialism (Obama, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). It is VERY important to note that all three are more left of the GOP, they are also more Authoritarian.

The East India Tea Company petitioned for the the exclusive right to directly sell tea throughout the UK including the American Colonies under a tax stamp (similar to the tax stamp for growing Marijuana/Hemp in the US or buying a fully automatic firearm/silencer). This stamp was later applied to post cards, playing cards, etc. the Stamp Act allowed them to bypass the tea auction houses in England where all other tea had to go first before coming to the colonies. Hence being fresher, East India Tea tasted better and cost more.

In any case the additional taxes without proper representation was the big grief, because in the past subjects of the crown paid no taxes unless they had representation in the House of Lords.

How would you classify a group of Americans hijacking a container ship and dumping the containers overboard in protest against dumping Chinese goods on American Soil using the above metrics?

a reply to: jacobe001

A modern day Sons of Liberty? Loads of things are up to interpretation. I can tell you that the Brits boycotted Boston until the cargo value of the tea and other goods was repaid in full back then.

China goods dumping could have various meanings: intentionally inferior or dangerous goods such as tainted or toxic paints, etc. economic dumping of a competing or counterfeit product like Coach purse knockoffs could be the situation.

This modern group better have a very good cause such as public safety to be viewed as anything other than criminal. But then again, even the originals were considered outlaws and caused merchants and general public hardship from the suspension of goods on the boycott.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: jacobe001

A modern day Sons of Liberty? Loads of things are up to interpretation. I can tell you that the Brits boycotted Boston until the cargo value of the tea and other goods was repaid in full back then.

China goods dumping could have various meanings: intentionally inferior or dangerous goods such as tainted or toxic paints, etc. economic dumping of a competing or counterfeit product like Coach purse knockoffs could be the situation.

This modern group better have a very good cause such as public safety to be viewed as anything other than criminal. But then again, even the originals were considered outlaws and caused merchants and general public hardship from the suspension of goods on the boycott.

If Nationalist Americans dumped Chinese Shipping Containers overboard today, they would be labeled terrorists.
Sadly, Global Corporations have our politicians in their pockets and their allies are not nations but globalist politicians willing to do their bidding.
These Global Corporations will side with each other first before they side with citizens of said countries.

a reply to: jacobe001

Which is the stink of capitalism... winning.

Well with today's political correctness, context, and from what I'm being told...the move for independence from Britain would be ideally left.

The Monarchies are national, imperial, and colonial everything the MSM platform of the left considers Satanism.

Free...one thing both capital and communist systems can't stand.