The goal wasn't to make the British go away, the goal was to have representation and more than half of the people in the colonies weren't even for the revolution. This is why they dressed up as natives for the Boston tea party so they could blame that shit on the natives.

The support of independence wasn't much till Paul Revere demonized the Boston massacre into being much more villainous than it was.

The colonies kinda got what they want in revolution with the articles of confederation but with the rise of the federalists the US was created as a V2 of the British empire.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That's a take

[–] Chriswild@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I don't see how history is a take. I literally wrote papers in college about this.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The "more villainous" part is odd to me, but the subjective claim that the federalists were just v2.0 of the British empire is strong "don't tread on me" libertarian vibes ngl

[–] Chriswild@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Now that's a take

[–] dvoraqs@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Most of history is made up of stories.

We can tell different stories of history and many even conflicting ones can be true, but they don't all have the same weight in their impact to the course of events.

[–] Chriswild@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah just like how Paul Revere made up the story about the Boston massacre to sell papers.

[–] absentbird@lemm.ee 11 points 6 months ago

The Boston Massacre was a real event. British soldiers fired into a crowd of hundreds, killing several. Maybe Paul Revere embellished it, but it's not made-up.