What Independence Day Really Means

And then as practiced, was it in any sense a pro-freedom movement, right? Was it consistently pro-freedom and what were the methods used to obtain this freedom? And what Rothbard finds is that, yes, it was very much a radical libertarian revolution in the sense that it sought very much to undo state power, not just British state power, but to undo the power of the state governments in many cases as well, to totally break free of the old oligarchic style of government that had been imposed by the British state and to not recreate it.

simply anew in the new thing called the United States.

So why does Rothbard spend so much time on this topic of really sending home the idea that, yes, the revolution was very radical and it was a major sea change in the sorts of institutions at the time? Also was, as he reiterates many times, it was a people's revolution.

This was not some conspiracy among the ruling classes to trick them into getting independence from Britain so that therefore the ruling classes could then oppose.

oppress everybody all the more harshly, white and black, by the way, right? Because of course, you'll get lots of arguments from people at groups like the 1619 Project, remember that, from a few years ago, which were arguing that the American Revolution was just about preserving slavery, extending slavery.

And then some might even note that by extension, therefore, it was to, therefore, if you're a good Marxist, you would say, oh, this ruling class then, this bourgeois ruling class was there to oppress people.

the proletariat, the lower classes who weren't on the level of a George Washington or a patrician like Thomas Jefferson or a rich lawyer like John Adams, right? These were people who had concocted the revolution to really protect their own ruling position and then lord it over everybody else.

That's a certain narrative that you can get.

Rothbard says that's not accurate.

This was, in fact, a very disruptive revolutionary movement that undid most of the institutions that were really keeping in place the ruling regime and that those who were radicals in opposing British rule were, in fact, opening themselves up to a very fluid situation that may or may not have resulted in them being in a good position afterward.

As things turned out, sure, many of the richest patriots, that is the people who supported the revolution, were still in power afterward.

But in many cases, it was in fact the state governments were weakened, that government became much more localized, and that the relationship between individuals and the state apparatus to the extent that it existed became significantly more balanced.

But we have to very much note that when we are talking about all of these phenomena and what Rothbard is talking about here, when talking about the radicalism of the revolution, when he's talking about the Declaration of Independence and what the writers believed ideologically, he is talking about the context of the 1770s.

And then as practiced, was it in any sense a pro-freedom movement, right? Was it consistently pro-freedom and what were the methods used to obtain this freedom? And what Rothbard finds is that, yes, it was very much a radical libertarian revolution in the sense that it sought very much to undo state power, not just British state power, but to undo the power of the state governments in many cases as well, to totally break free of the old oligarchic style of government that had been imposed by the British state and to not recreate it.

simply anew in the new thing called the United States.

So why does Rothbard spend so much time on this topic of really sending home the idea that, yes, the revolution was very radical and it was a major sea change in the sorts of institutions at the time? Also was, as he reiterates many times, it was a people's revolution.

This was not some conspiracy among the ruling classes to trick them into getting independence from Britain so that therefore the ruling classes could then oppose.

oppress everybody all the more harshly, white and black, by the way, right? Because of course, you'll get lots of arguments from people at groups like the 1619 Project, remember that, from a few years ago, which were arguing that the American Revolution was just about preserving slavery, extending slavery.

And then some might even note that by extension, therefore, it was to, therefore, if you're a good Marxist, you would say, oh, this ruling class then, this bourgeois ruling class was there to oppress people.

the proletariat, the lower classes who weren't on the level of a George Washington or a patrician like Thomas Jefferson or a rich lawyer like John Adams, right? These were people who had concocted the revolution to really protect their own ruling position and then lord it over everybody else.

That's a certain narrative that you can get.

Rothbard says that's not accurate.

This was, in fact, a very disruptive revolutionary movement that undid most of the institutions that were really keeping in place the ruling regime and that those who were radicals in opposing British rule were, in fact, opening themselves up to a very fluid situation that may or may not have resulted in them being in a good position afterward.

As things turned out, sure, many of the richest patriots, that is the people who supported the revolution, were still in power afterward.

But in many cases, it was in fact the state governments were weakened, that government became much more localized, and that the relationship between individuals and the state apparatus to the extent that it existed became significantly more balanced.

But we have to very much note that when we are talking about all of these phenomena and what Rothbard is talking about here, when talking about the radicalism of the revolution, when he's talking about the Declaration of Independence and what the writers believed ideologically, he is talking about the context of the 1770s.