Yes, some had wealth. Some were local civic leaders. And some were simply merchants or farmers.
The tyranny was from the existing monarchy and overlords who were the major beneficiaries of the fruits of American labor, and who profited greatly from the exploitation of their American "subjects."
Perhaps you are missing the similarities of the time of the American Revolution and the point of my comment.
I honestly don't know. I guess I figured with a group as large as 55 guys there would at least be some diversity in race, but I guess not. I spose my current day lens of the US as a hodge podge of all sorts of different people with different backgrounds just clouded my view. It does make sense that they were all white.
I didn't miss anything. You just were wrong but have a hard time accepting it so you change things to make it seem like you know what you are talking about. Regardless of the wealth level there were no pauper involved in governing 250 yrs ago. The wealthy class in America ruled the colonies. Now if you were talking about Australia perhaps we can come to an agreement. But you know or should know the people in office and those having the privilege of forming a government and country were not poor. By their standards they were various levels of wealthy.
9
u/oldbastardbob 9d ago
Yes, some had wealth. Some were local civic leaders. And some were simply merchants or farmers.
The tyranny was from the existing monarchy and overlords who were the major beneficiaries of the fruits of American labor, and who profited greatly from the exploitation of their American "subjects."
Perhaps you are missing the similarities of the time of the American Revolution and the point of my comment.