PIC: Government officials signing OWS protest permit.

[Deep13]

[Myrina]

1. ... except that in their day, they were 1%'ers ...

n/t

[FirstLight]

2. ya, well...we all know that, but still

it's a pretty cool concept ;)

edit to add: i am so stealing this!

[JDPriestly]

3. They were farmers and professionals and small business men.

There were a few rich men, but most of the rich people remained loyal to the British government.

The revolutionary movement started as a revolt against corporate domination of the British government.

American colonists specifically protested against the East India Tea Company and the laws passed by the British Parliament to protect the monopoly and profits of the East India Tea Company and prevent American small businessmen from selling their own tea.

"The Boston Tea Party was a direct action by colonists in Boston, a town in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the British government and the monopolistic East India Company that controlled all the tea imported into the colonies. On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The incident remains an iconic event of American history, and other political protests often refer to it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

Later, the revolt broadened in its aims.

The Founding Fathers were a mix of people.

Washington's army, the folks who won our Revolution, was a pretty good cross-section of a few wealthy and many who were poor. Many of Washington's recruits were farm kids, young, rough and ready, but inexperienced. He had to make them into an army.

So the idea that the American Revolution was a rich man's movement is not true.

The American Revolution was the work of a cross-section of the population. Thomas Paine, for example, the author of the books and articles that inspired the American revolutionaries in their darkest winter, was far, far from rich. In fact, he was poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

The American Revolution was not the achievement of a small group of rich men. That is a lie, pure and simple. A very popular lie, but a lie.

A lot of Americans do not realize how many American colonists remained loyal to the British crown. Benjamin Franklin's own son was a loyalist.

[Charronxyz]

8. They were farmers...

"They were farmers and professionals and small business men"

That is a myth, of the signatories of Declaration of Independence nearly all were slave owners, part of the 2% who owned slaves, they were the financial elite of that time, lawyers, bankers and speculators, all owned land but on their farms it was their slaves that did the work, some like James Madison even imported and breed slaves for "market". These self appointed leaders negotiated behind closed doors to ensure their control and protect their own interests, ordinary citizen were not welcomed, initially they wanted the vote to be limited to rich landowners.

George Washington owned more than 200 slaves
Thomas Jefferson owned more than 100 slaves
James Madison owned and sold slaves all his life
James Monroe owned 30-40 slaves
Andrew Jackson owned about 160 slaves

[JDPriestly]

9. These wealthy, well educated men were the intellectuals of their day,

the Mario Savios of there time. But the masses of revolutionaries, the small farmers in New Jersey who helped feed Washington's men and starve the British, the boys and men who signed up for Washington's army (not the officers) were poor, ordinary people.

Nothing has changed. You might be surprised about the extent of the education and the variety of family backgrounds of a few of the demonstrators in Occupy Wall Street and Occupy LA.

As for our Founding Fathers, Jefferson was an intellectual. Many although not all of the leaders of the American revolution were students of the Enlightenment. Washington was less of an intellectual, but had needed military experience. Madison was quite an intellectual.

As you probably know, Jefferson died virtually penniless -- bankrupt. And Washington did not really have the money to pay his troops. I believe that some were paid with land grants in Kentucky, for example.

[Deep13]

6. Yup, here they are signing OWS's permit. nt

[dtexdem]

7. Yeah, but they also knew how to foment rebellion ...

successfully.

[flamingdem]

4. That's very nice to see nt

[mmonk]

5. They should have elected different members to Parliament....oh wait.

[Deep13]

10. I posted this a few days ago, but even this misses the point.

OWS is not an interest group and does not need authority from any outside source, not even the Constitution. It is the realization of the nation in being and creates its own authority.