[Pharmboy]

Yes—to everything you just wrote. I was questioning your use of the term “counter-revolutionary” in your previous post. There was no revolution that it was countering, just the Crown.

[Ohioan]

A radical change in social or political conditions, backed by force has long been understood to be a "Revolution." And the complaint against the "Crown," as Jefferson's long indictment makes clear, includes many if not mostly, contrivances & inaction by the elected Parliament. We were rising against increased Government, while not resulting from an uprising such as the November Revolution in Russia, or the Jacobin Revolution in France, was as truly a revolution as one of those.

Prior to 1756, if a group of settlers found too much Government in their frontier town, they simply moved on. If they acquired either from farming or trapping or whatever, something to sell, they believed that it was theirs to sell to whomever they pleased, wherever they pleased, and keep what they received in return. They also believed that even a relatively poor man's home was his castle.

Those who signed on to the Declaration, would not have tolerated the usurpation that we daily endure in America today; nor the unconstitutional squandering of resources effectively embezzled from the public--embezzled, because even where legally obtained by the Government by Constitutional methods; they are being spent in ways never authorized, and therefore illegally.

William Flax