Skip to main content

Just a quick thought, as I was looking at the Declaration of Independence online, today.

Would the current Republican Party have been in favor of signing it?  Are the ultra-rich overlords that we currently have, and Republicans idolize, any different from the King of England?

Since the massive majority of Republicans must believe that the rich deserve to control the country much more than they, themselves, do, wouldn't they be more comfortable in a monarchy?  When is the last time the Republicans have gone against the ultra-rich?  Why bother with any form of democracy, when the rich are ALWAYS, by definition, correct?

Have a wonderful 4th of July, Kossacks, and thank you for all you do.  Most days, this place is my only refuge from indecency, stupidity, and hatred in our country.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Of course they would have (6+ / 0-)

    A large part of the motivation for independence was so that rich colonials wouldn't have to send so much of their money back to England. (Most of the rest of the motivation was to protect slavery: the motivation differed hugely between North and South.)

    The real question is, would current Democrats have supported independence. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have, for example. I'd've ended up in Canada, no doubt, or back in England.

    •  Good points (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Thanks for your input.

      I don't know nearly as much as I should about the background, was just curious.

    •  western expansion was another issue (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      geebeebee, wilderness voice

      Colonials wanted to move west, especially the later arrivals who found not an "empty" continent but one where most of the good land had already been snapped up as early as a century ago.  However the British had treaties with many Native American tribes against the French and their own Native proxies, and forbade settlement west of the Appalachians.

      Even in those days Americans had a sense of "manifest destiny" and saw this restriction as not only an economic handicap but a slap in the face to their aspirations as a nation distinct from Britain.  Many supported the revolution at least partially in the hope that the new government would allow settlement beyond the mountains, which they did.

      To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

      by Visceral on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 11:11:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed (0+ / 0-)

      It was a case of wealthy landowners and business owners that didn't want to pay taxes.

      Anything else associated with it was to try to get the hoi polloi to go along to do the actual fighting. No sooner was the war over when the wealthy folks started reneging on all of the promises of land to the soldiers and other things.

      So it fits right in with today - actually it demonstrates that it never changed - where the wealthy don't want to pay any taxes and will use any means necessary including sending anybody and everybody else off to fight to achieve it.

  •  Was listening to the traditional... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...reading of the Declaration on NPR Morning Edition, and found myself wondering the same thing.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 10:52:42 AM PDT

  •  yes, but not for good reasons (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Egalitare, geebeebee

    These are people who do not tolerate anyone setting boundaries for their behavior or passing judgment on them.  Today's Republicans would have been happy to fight the British, but they would have turned their guns on their fellow revolutionaries the minute anyone started talking about setting up a new government.  

    Their ideal would have been a plutocratic anarchy, where Southern plantation owners each ruled like little feudal lords and occasionally colluded with each other when there was something to be gained by it.  In their minds, anyone who owned land would have been just as free, merely on a geographically smaller scale.  No taxes, no laws; just you, your gun, and your Bible.  The only losers would have been anyone who wanted a country because they planned to rule or profit from it: bankers, lawyers, merchants, guildsmen, etc.  They might even have seen far richer landowners like Washington and Jefferson as self-serving in their desire to build a country.

    To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

    by Visceral on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 10:58:32 AM PDT

  •  Republicans are Tories (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    George Will, in a moment of honest analysis years ago described himself as a Tory.  

    Today's conservatives are descendants of Edmund Burke.  It might be good to remember that when Thomas Paine wrote in opposition to Burke's pro-monarchy stance, he had to flee Britain and got out just ahead of being arrested.  He could have wound up being hung.

    Tories in the US were opposed to the direction the people we now call the Founders were taking.  

    The signers of the Declaration all knew that there was a possibility that they could wind up at the end of a hangman's noose or in front of a firing squad.  

    The GOP of today would probably love to be able to hang progressives.  

    Who knows what kind of restrictive policies towards speech freedom a Romney Administration might adopt?  It would not go back that far, but it would be regressive.

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 11:16:23 AM PDT

  •  In large measure, the Am Revolution was a revolt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    against the English plutocracy by their Colonial counterparts.  The American leaders did not want to set up anything so dangerous as a real democracy.  Instead, they wanted all the money they saw going to English merchants and English mercantilists to come to them, with minimal disruption of social and economic strata.  There were exceptions, of course, but the list of signers of that Declaration, and especially the authors of the Constitution that eventually replaced English government were overwhelmingly 1%ers to their core.  John Hancock would almost surely have been a Republican, and we all know how splendid his signature was on that document.

    As to the rank and file Republicans, there is much more room for debate.  After all, "conservative" colonials were generally supporters of the King and the status quo.  Large areas of Eastern Canada were populated by American loyalists fleeing the Revolution and the society it was expected to create.  It is a better than even bet that our Tea Party patriots would not have been dressed as "Indians" on that fateful night.

  •  Wonderful Thought Experiment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Let's remember that the Loyalists (Tories) were no small contingent of the population. Combine them with people who just wanted to keep life going without being involved in someone else's war (as if I care enough who gets the money from my tea, such that I will let my child lose his life for it) and it makes a great topic.

    I just want to know how Fox News would rant about who. Who gets to be George Soros and who gets to be the Koch Brothers?

    If it were only as bad as 1984.

    by siegestate on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 11:45:11 AM PDT

  •  yes. but they didn't like what came after it -- (0+ / 0-)

    the constitution we have now.

    they much preferred the articles of confederation -- that failed so miserably.

  •  Republicans Were The Ones Who Rebelled (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry, but it was the "free lunch" crowd who drove the colonies to rebel against the existing government of the day.  In other words, the Republicans of that time, those who objected to paying the cost of the soldiers they asked for to defend them from the French and Indians, who started the whole thing.

    The rebellion was basically about two grievances.  First, because the government had decreed almost all of the territory gained from the French during the Seven Years War off limits to the colonists in keeping with the treaties between the Crown and the Indian Allies, and Second, because they were being asked for the first time to pay for the cost of the troops left here (at their own request).  That cost was still considerably lower than the amount of taxes being paid by the average Englishman.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site