In the third paragraph, Thomas Hutchinson makes the claim that the British parliament had “Supremacy” over the American legislatures, yet said parliament was neither then nor ever the creator of nor party to the American governments.

I dare anyone to explain that.

Set aside its content and look at it for what it really is: a most public compact between a group of men agreeing to a fight to the death versus the most powerful empire in the history of the world.

They easily could have lost, and if they had lost they would have been hung to the last man, and their names dragged through the mud for the rest of time.

In Signing the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers each unbuttoned their Trousers and threw their Nuts on the table for all to See and Know.

Who among you would have the Stones?

I sympathize with the rebels on some counts- yes, Britain was the most liberal country of the age [although that had serious limitations even compared to the government the early US set up] and yes the colonists were drawing on the British tradition in the first place. On the other hand, they actually were being taxed without representation in parliament, or by being taxed through their own assemblies, and their assemblies were under some threat to their operations and existence.

But they were also objecting to taxation that was necessary mainly the pay for the war that had permanently freed the colonies from the French threat, and which had been fought and won at great expense almost wholly by the Royal Navy and British regular troops. If the mechanisms of taxation posed serious constitutional problems, the fact of the taxes was wholly reasonable and justified.

But my chief concerns about the declaration have always been the clauses about the Indians and the Quebec Act. which basically amounted to, “we the people of the colonies are entitled to settle anywhere in British possessions, EVEN to the extent of stealing the land of the Indians who are fellow British subjects, and for the British to protect the Indians is inherently to oppress us”, and “we the people are entitled to object to the governmental arrangements of a wholly distinct British province, which is being governed according to its customs and public wishes, but we think it’s creepy”.

It is not surprising that it is never, ever taught; nor will one EVER find a response to it from any of the people calling on the Declaration as an object of nearly-religious veneration. I have asked more than a few patriot-pundits for a rebuttal of Hutchison’s claims or evidence that what he was saying was false, or evidence that in light of the Strictures, the Declaration could be said to be truthful or valid. They have thus far been utterly unable to provide any such thing.

The act of bringing this to light alone made Mencius Moldbug a net positive factor.

The question of whether American independence was a good thing is an interesting one, but one cannot arrive at a truthful answer by ignoring relevant facts.