The REAL REASON for the American Revolution with Noam Chomsky. 

Slavery was a major reason for Texans to break away from Mexico. Slavery was outlawed in Mexico.

Another major reason for the war that had huge ramifications was the Appalachian Divide of 1763. This was a major concession to Pontiac and his confederacy by Great Britain that was to limit colonial expansion, in fact curtail it. Unfortunately, many colonists were outraged by this treaty obligation, even going so far as to violate its terms, thus pushing many First Nations people into the camp of the British and creating ill-feeling from the colonists towards the mother country.

The original draft of the Declaration of Independence had a paragraph excoriating slavery and calling it an assemblage of horrors, using all capital letters. It got removed because so many states, particularly southern states, relied on it and wouldn't support the revolution otherwise. But that doesn't mean the Founding Fathers were gung-ho slave-owners. They knew it was wrong and eventually it would have to be dealt with and discussed that, which of course happened in the Civil War.

Slavery was abolished in England and wales in 1772. In the colonies 1833.

Soldiers rarely fight wars for the same reasons as those who start them.

I've heard that theory before, British sources tend to use that. What he didn't say was the revolution started in New England where slavery was not such a big deal. It did exist though. I've never heard these ideas associated with the New England (particularly Boston) patriots

That Americans wanted independence because they wanted to expand westwards means they just got rid of colonialism because they want to do it for themselves! I had the right thought all along. Eventually they became settler colonisation par excellence without regrets! Thx Noam for confirming.

In DAZED AND CONFUSED a high school teacher says about the 1976 bicentennial of US independence, "Let's not forget what we're celebrating here--a bunch of white male slaveowners didn't want to pay their taxes!" It's a funny line because it's partially true...

Oddly enough, I did learn about "The line" to Western expansion and prison slavery and "share cropping" slavery in grade school in West Virginia, from our West Virginia History books, back in the 1950s and 60s. I doubt that book is still in print, let alone taught in West Virginia school today.

"I don’t know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves." - Gordon S. Wood (a leading historian of the American Revolution).

Many people don’t realize the the revolutionaries represented a minority of the colonial population.

a proposed empire-wide central banking system based in london was another motivation for those slave-owning capitalists. central banking can only operate if the people within its systemic reach are born into arbitrary debt. banking's central premise is the lending out and receiving repayment at interest, other people's money for profit. central banking is the premise that the other people whose money is being lent, are yet to be born. abstraction can take us to truly absurd places where atrocious things occur. central banking only became possible once usury ceased being a crime.

I hope people can find Chomsky's brilliant lecture on, THE REAL REASON FOR TOILET PAPER

Does Chomsky know that the American Revolution didn't start in Virginia but started in the north with opposition to the Stamp Act and consequent Boston Tea Party then the battles of Lexington and Concord. Geez everyone has to put their own spin on everything.

Sometimes Chomsky gets carried away by his own ego...

George III paid to fight the French and Indian wars in North America But when he tried to recoup the costs through taxation, the Merchant class refused to pay for their own protection And not much has changed in 250 odd years Others bleed so we can profit

I'm not sure I can accept Chomsky's argument here. If the purpose of the Revolution was the preservation of slavery, then why did the Founders argue so passionately among themselves at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 over what to do about slavery? Didn't they supposedly just fight the Revolution to protect slavery from the British?? While taxation wasn't as big of a deal as elementary schools make it out to be, self-governance certainly was. From Thomas Paine to Thomas Jefferson, the main complaint the Founders had was that they could not tolerate living under the rule of the King of England and wished to govern themselves instead. Paine, in particular, offers the following reasons in his famous pamphlet "Common Sense": -Under rulership by the King of England, there's an intolerable delay between communicating grievances to the King and awaiting the King's response to those grievances. It would be more efficient if the colonists could just decide for themselves. -As long as America is ruled by the King, Great Britain's enemies become America's enemies, even though Americans don't necessarily have any grievances against Great Britain's enemies. -Under British rule, Americans would be hindered in their ability to trade with European nations against whom Britain has conflicts. -America, because of its abundance of natural resources, would be far more enriched if it could control its own economy and trade. The common theme here is that the Americans wanted to autonomously decide for themselves how to run the colonies and not have someone 3,000 miles away deciding that for them.

So glad to hear this. Yes I studied the British empire for a year but didn’t know much about the reasons for American independence

There are several flaws with what Chomsky is saying: 1. We did learn 80% of this in Middle and High School. Whether or not it stopped being taught in the 2010s or if people just aren't paying attention in History class is another matter. Granted, it may not have been taught when Chomsky went to school, but I would wager every Millennial was taught the Proclamation of 1763, the Mexican War's dubious justification and the role slavery played in it, as well as the role slavery played in the Atlantic trade network of the 18th century (which Chomsky presents inaccurately) 2. Cotton was not king prior to the invention of the cotton gin. Virginia and North Carolina was dominated by tobacco, and South Carolina was a mixture of cotton, rice, indigo and the like. 3. Cotton was not the most important commodity in world trade prior to the early 19th century. He makes it sound like it was so for centuries. 4. Sugar, was the most important commodity in world trade in the 17th and 18th centuries and was the cornerstone of the Atlantic triangle trade, and yes it was produced by horrific slave systems, especially in Barbados and Jamaica especially and yes it was taught to us in Middle and High School. . 5. "King Cotton" as the dominant cash crop comes about by the 1820s and reaches its peak right as the Civil War starts. It was only made possible because the cost of cotton was dropped substantially by the cotton gin, which removed the seeds that previously had to be removed by hand. This expanded the market for cotton as it out competed other fabrics, leading to increased demand for raw cotton and thus the massive expansion of cotton Plantations across the South to feed mass expansion of the textile mills of Manchester in England and all over New England to in turn feed the demand cotton clothing. 6. The "American Revolution was about Slavery" narrative is deeply flawed. Even if you can tie the motivations of Virginia to "English pressures over slavery" (which is a stretch), the Revolution did not start in Virginia. It was started in the streets of Boston by working class riots in the streets and small farmers in the Massachusetts country side. The Northern states, and their motivations just cease to exist in this narrative, as does the reality that Massachusetts was one of the bigger states relatively speaking at the time of the Revolution. This is the problem with critical theory. Over generalize, misapply historical facts to the wrong time period, and contort the historical record to fit the desired narrative. Its the same flaw that is present in Marx's take on history. Sure "Marxist thought" can provide important insights by highlighting say a class angle in history, but when you try to shoehorn everything into that paradigm, eventually it just becomes ideological revisionism. The American Civil War was about slavery as the dominant cause, the American Revolution was not. It might have motivated some of the Southern colonies to get on board, but it was not the cause.

My ancestors were palatine Germans the fought the English to ensure that they were never again enslaved by them , learn your history Norm

Cotton was “king” just as oil is now, for many of the same reasons. One is that oil makes possible trade and distribution today that, in the age of sail, was dependent upon cotton canvas.

As seemingly virtuous it is to vilify slavery. Pushing it as if it was a major landmark of why a nation was created; does not equate to the reality of what the nation actually stood for or even factually accurate. Pandering more towards the negative qualities of history is definitely going to stir emotional ignorance amongst those with spiteful insecurities, outlandish dissonance towards subjects they disagree with, and even the lack of mature cognitive thinking. He has an apologist attitude as if it is being practiced today as much as it was in the past

The middle passage bringing black Africans to North America, South America and the Caribbean was done in ships owned by the Dutch and commanded out of New England. The astronomic profits were the endowments of our Ivy League colleges renowned around the world. Nobody hated this slavery more than the small farmers and working poor white people of the southern states. The worst plantations were syndicate owned in the north with brutal overseers from lowland Scots and also blacks themselves. As the movie "Glory" say in a line said by Morgan Freeman, "Ain't nobody clean."

This is simply just not true. Most historians dispute this claim.

The revolutionary War has the distinction of being the only revolution in the world that was started by the wealthy rather than the poor as in France, Russia, etc. The primary goal was independence from England which was preventing the wealthy from having free trade with other countries, etc. Economics had a huge part in this scenario which included many topics and did include slavery which the southern colonies wanted to protect. Chomsky’s scenario is novel but could be based in fact which has not been fully disclosed or known by historians. History is written by the winners. Even the losers sanitized the history of the Civil War.

It's nice to hear someone else saying this.

It's worth mentioning that the British only ended the 7 seven years war with the French in 1763, and obtained vast territories from the French as a result. The British were woefully unprepared to take control of these huge areas with no existing presence at all. This, and the fact that the Spanish controlled nearly all the west coast, and that the lack of roads and rail meant that news of the American Revolution took weeks to cross the continent. So the American Revolution was an entirely an East coast event, and less than half were in favour of a tevolution anyway. It simply wasn't the pan-America, the-people-rose-up-as-one-to-overthrow-the-oppressors-event that propagandists from a century later made it out to be.

Thank you!!!

The 60s were rough on old Noam

This doesn't explain why first battle occurred in Massachusetts or the Boston Tea Party.

My mother would not like Noaam Chomsky, because she always said if you don't have somthing nice to say about someone, then don't say anything. At the very least, Noam is intelligent enough to write his own history of the world, so that he could say nasty things. Even Joe Gould didny do that.

Focus on point two people. Americans are so easily distracted by slavery. Point two, the other reason, expansion. Britain already had treaties with the Indians. American colonists wanted more living room, expansion.

Britain had also given directions not to expand the colonies westward and to respect native american sovereignty west of the colonied. Another flashpoint issue given the colonists’ demands for more land.

The successful 1776 revolt against British rule in North America has been hailed almost universally as a great step forward for humanity. But the Africans then living in the colonies overwhelmingly sided with the British. In this trailblazing book, Gerald Horne shows that in the prelude to 1776, the abolition of slavery seemed all but inevitable in London, delighting Africans as much as it outraged slaveholders, and sparking the colonial revolt. Prior to 1776, anti-slavery sentiments were deepening throughout Britain and in the Caribbean, rebellious Africans were in revolt. For European colonists in America, the major threat to their security was a foreign invasion combined with an insurrection of the enslaved. It was a real and threatening possibility that London would impose abolition throughout the colonies--a possibility the founding fathers feared would bring slave rebellions to their shores. To forestall it, they went to war. The so-called Revolutionary War, Horne writes, was in part a counter-revolution, a conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their right to enslave others. The Counter-Revolution of 1776 brings us to a radical new understanding of the traditional heroic creation myth of the United States.

I could see how the British could ban slavery. At the same time Britain saw and exploited the Agrarian South for their own ends. How was that to happen without slavery? Your theory makes no sense.

I suspect that some of the specifics of what he is saying is factually correct, but as Lincoln would’ve said/asked “Is that the WHOLE truth?” The manifold complexity of such things as the founding of a nation, the first democracy(& THAT’s the important thing), requires some pretty sophisticated thinking in order to capture the nuance & subtlety required to get the whole picture. You can lie to a person by stating nothing but facts, when you don’t give ALL the facts….🙏🇱🇷🎩

Thank goodness we have Norm around to cherry pick (and perhaps indulges) to tell us how evil and rotten we are.

The mainstream attributed the revolution to the taxation without representation. It did play a role, but the importance was exaggerated. The taxes in America were lower than those in Britain and became even higher after the independence. The notorious stamp acts were revoked ten years before the revolution. Britain prevented colonists from land grab in the west. This was one of the most important, if not the single most important factor. The 7-year war was fought for the control of the Ohio Valley. After the victory, Britain banned the western expansion to the detriment of American interests. Needless to say, this common-sensic and materialistic explanation runs counter to the idealistic founding myth. So it has not been and will not be recognized as even one of the major reasons for the American Revolution.

At least have tolerance for the others ' views. Noam is a great man and an honest man!!!

Land speculators like George Washington wanted to continue "buying" land from the natives. Thomas Jefferson was a tax lawyer who specialized in such deals. Ordinary people didn't want to pay taxes.

I have an idea. Instead of constantly arguing over historical slavery, how about we all just agree that it needs to stop and that no one l, especially the government, is noble enough to officiate over its use.

We teach American historiography in schools. I was never told that a 1942 Supreme Court decision said I did not have to say the pledge of allegiance each morning in school. Not to mention that I was subjected to coerced haircuts every other Saturday morning. I had no freedom and knew nothing about the regime hat oppressed me. I never liked it but I did not know enough to dislike what it was.

OMG, I have been asleep for 56 years

Chomsky thought the novel 1984 was an instruction book.

Since the dawn of time there have only been two things that have made the world world go around; one is the power of a dollar (the Golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules), and the other is the point of a gun (or war - same difference)...

Thank you, Mr. Chomsky, for acknowledging the slaughter of the Native Americans, too! God bless you for tackling the taboo subjects that no-one else dares to touch!

I came to this conclusion on my own years ago but when I mention on Reddit I get downvoted to oblivion. The New England colonies and the Middle Colonies of the 13 colonies wanted freedom from British rule if they weren't allowed representation, some self-determination. The Southern colonies of the 13 also wanted that too but were more loyal to Britian due to exports back to Britain. It was their bread and butter to work with England while the Northern States were more autonomous and self-sufficient. Then a court in 1770 in England ruled in favor of a slave brought to England and was set free. They tried to reverse it for years in the courts but when another case ruled the same way, the Southern colonies were alarmed and knew it would spread to the British colonies. Slaves that were need much more in the South for plantation would be set free so they finally joined the other States in resisting British rule more. Boston was emboldened by the South's goring displeasure. England sent more troops to Boston from England and forced the people to house the soldiers in their homes to save money on garrisoning. It made it worse and it led to worse. It was a powder keg. Just know that what the United States calls the "French and Indian War" decades earlier was started by a couple of British officers. One of them was a very young George Washington. The same war was called in Europe "The Seven Years War" (which lasted 11 years) and some historians today call it "World War 0". George Washington kicked off a war that was waged around the world and eventually ended up with France and other countries losing and England winning. The problem for England was that it was VERY expensive war. So the King of England wanted to tax his citizens in the British Isles and the colonies around the World. 13 colonies in America were defended by England against the French and the Native Americans on their side raiding those colonies. The colonies really owed England but the colonists didn't want to pay. George taxed them anyway with Stamp (contract) taxes, Tea Taxes, etc. The Colonists should have been taxed due to the defense of their very lives but they instead turned on the King of England. Not that the King England was a good guy but he also wasn't taxing the colonist for profit and for no good reason. Bonus: In the "War of 1812" England burned the United States capitol but they also freed many slaves in the region too. So was the US the good guys in that conflict?

The argument may explain the motives of slaveholders in the southern colonies, but the economy of northern colonies was not as dependent on slaves. As well, the most fervent revolutionary sentiment was in northern colonies like Massachusetts, where taxation and (lack of) representation in Parliament were the biggest issues. So Chomsky is partly right, but the commonly taught narrative is also true. There were three reasons for the American Revolution: (1) unjust taxation, (2) slaveholder concerns, and (3) desire for western expansion of settlement. Those three reasons all came together, and if they hadn't, the revolt could have failed and the Founding Fathers would have all been hanged for treason.

I know he doesn't need my approval, but these are the surprising facts as I've read them. Washington's pre-revolutionary life was defined by finding a way to make money off land that was forbidden for settlement after the Paris Treaty of 1863, the agreement that forbade westward expansion of settlers. Washington had no intentions of leaving it for the "lowly" Scotts-Irish who often violated the boundaries, he didn't like them either. He wanted it parceled off as a real estate scheme. The problem wasn't just Native Americans, it was their French allies too. They fought a war over it, and London decided it would agree to keep English settlers out of the western regions of those states. So, they had a "tea party" to protest.

Actually, there was alot of opposition to slavery in the US. In fact, several Northern US states abolished slavery decades before Britain. Britain didnt abolish slavery until 1835. "By 1789, five of the Northern states had policies that started to gradually abolish slavery: Pennsylvania (1780), New Hampshire and Massachusetts (1783), Connecticut and Rhode Island (1784). Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, while it was still independent."

One point that is never mentioned, America fought a war for its independence, many others just negotiated, America fought a war to sort of stop slavery, everyone else just stopped for moral and financial reasons as it was more financially viable to pay a worker, America seems to like to fight first and talk last

Noam didn't mention my theory that the London bankers wanted the British Colonies in North America to break with England because they had loaned money to the slave owner in North America & wanted to be paid back with interest. If England ended slavery while the Colonies in America were still part of the British Empire then getting paid back was less certain. AND the attacks on the Indigenous People/"Native American Indians" was manipulated by the Continental Congress that included land speculators by paying the Revolutionary War soldiers with land that was already occupied by the Indigenous People, which would practically guarantee armed conflict between the original occupants of North America & the settler-colonists.

In 1773 on average the American settlers were the most free and wealthiest group of English subjects alive. Sure they couldn't elect members of parliament. Neither could the inhabitants of Manchester or Birmingham.

Its laughable that all you commentators feel qualified to comment or criticise Chomsky. For any newbies, don't bother with the comments: just stick with what Chomsky says. You know, because he's spent his ENTIRE life researching these things.

War is fought for more than one reason. There are benefits to shaking off an empirical power like Britain for those of the New World. Including being able to ignore their laws and treaties. Here in NZ there are often calls to become a republic too. But that would mean making a treaty between the native people Māori and the crown null and void for a true republic to be adhered too.

This makes perfect sense. It's all coming together now.

Seems that being prevented from contesting with the natives for free western land had some impact.

Great story. Except the revolution really started in Massachusetts that didn't depend on slavery at all.

This seems like a big stretch, abolitionism in England really doesn't get started till the 1800s.

Britain didn't ban slavery until 1834, 60 years after the revolution. Abolishment of slavery wasn't an impending problem for the Founders as Chomsky suggests. It was mainly over general autonomy. This narrative fits with the current anti-racist rhetoric fad.

Chomsky exaggerates/distorts points that work in favor of his thesis. The events leading up to the American Revolution took place mainly in New England not the South, and those events were triggered by disputes over taxes, smuggling, and military occupation, not slavery. The notion that the early leaders of Revolutionary and early post-Revolutionary America were "almost without exception" Southerners is simply wrong.

The main reason, was the British insisted the Colonists use British money. Which was , by virtue of what it was another tax. Much like the money today. Please view "The money masters".

I guess Noam just gets to make things up. Neat.

This reinforces our understanding that the two great motivators are money and power. However, we should not be teaching our school kids that white America committed genocide and and relished slavery. These were supposed Christians who violated every teaching of Jesus with great enthusiasm.

Dr. Chomsky is undoubtedly one of the greatest linguistic experts who ever existed. His expertise outside that area is however severely limited. He is very intelligent though and very good at parsing language to spin a narrative. Many of his later takes on politics and history fail if one has more than a superficial understanding of the facts and issues involved.

Firstly, 1806 not 1808. Secondly, Britain pivoted to using Egyptian cotton as it was nearer geographically, cheaper and wasn't produced by slaves. Thirdly, glossing over industrialisation is weird. Lastly, and what? What is it you hope to learn 250 years abstracted from the events? Aren't your family Jewish serfs who migrated from the Pale or a shtettle somewhere? What did they have do with slavery?

Who is we?

Does anyone know a book that sums up all these information?

Truth to power

It was neither a war of independence nor a revolution.If it was an uprising for freedom, the American should have thought first of their slaves and Red Indians.It was a violent family feud only.

He tells the truth. Does it hurt?

I’m going to need to see some primary sources or read articles from other scholars to determine how true this is. It seems possible, but I will need to see some evidence to believe it.

The rebellion was multi-faceted. For the planters the Sommersett case was a dagger aimed at their throat. The colonies had the common law built into their DNA. Somersett, decided in 1772, attracted publicity in the Southern colonies. As usual, he's right.

Do a search for The City of London and the Bank of England. If you want insight and understanding into the British Empire - study the Boer War.

you do not have to hide it if people are trained not to look for it.

Colonization passes the buck. Literally

Leftist revisionism. And I like Chomsky

thomas Jefferson petitioned several times in 1760s house of burgesses to outlaw slavery in Virginia, but realized it would be something that would happen gradually. choosy should stick to linguistics, his chosen field.

With a foundation like that, why would one expect the USA to be better?

Slavery was becoming understood as morally deplorable in Britain, yet this would somehow have no effect on British colonies? Chomsky claims the founding fathers were slave-owners "almost without exception"-this is a misleading statement. He doesn't mention John Adams, Samuel Adams, Hamilton, Jay, Franklin (who freed his slaves), and probably the most important propagandist of revolution, Paine... Not to mention that slavery was generally waning at the time of the revolution, so that notable slaveholding founders like Jefferson could not deny the moral depravity of slavery. It's more complicated than Chomsky puts it. Chomsky would have one think even the average American revolutionary fought simply for the retention of slavery. His view is totally simplistic. And acknowledging this is no apologetics for slavery.

The claim that the American Founders were all slaveowners and sought to avoid the abolition of slavery by seceding from Great Britain is ludicrous. The slave trade was abolished in Britain in 1807, just a year before it was abolished in the U.S. Slavery was not abolished in the British Empire until 1834, both of these moves long after the American Revolution. William Wilberforce did not begin his campaign to end slavery until 1787. Chomsky's analysis is completely anachronistic.

We did not have the most vicious form of slavery. The Arabs were far worse. Everything he said up until then was interesting.

Promoting American exceptionalism is woods job and he is great at it.

Watching a TV series called Into the West from 2005 now. In six ninety minute dramatizations it gives the perspective of both colonists and indigenous people. Seems fairly balanced to me (as in it shows that the colonists suffered, that the Indians were warfaring (although doesn't show this graphically) and that extermination was essentially what was sought by the colonist Army).

When is forgiveness and reconciliation? After confessing your sins, you firmly resolve to do better. Then you create your better life, not continually agonizing over the past.

Does it even matter to this guy that Great Britain was the main importer of cotton from the southern states all the way up to the Civil War?

So if he's condemning these things, is he going to give all his wealth and assets away? Because he wouldnt have all that he has without those things happening.

Chomsky is an expert on linguistics, not US history. Gordon Wood, Jack Rakove, Bernard Bailyn, Pauline Maier, and Carol Berkin are just a few of the historians who provide a complex explanation of the American Revolution unlike the one-dimensional approach of Chomsky.

More Chomsky b.s. The American Revolution started in Massachusetts, which abolished slavery in 1783, right after the Revolutionary War ended.

As much as I admire Chomsky and I certainlyoppose slavery, but I'm not convinced that either the Revolutionary War or the Civil War was about slavery. I do think westward expansion was a factor in both. Also tariffs.

Noam has been a tool of the British banking empire his entire career.

not sure if what Chomsky is saying is true. I know he's taken the contrarian point of view in the past and there's no doubt slavery was a factor in the development of the United States but to say it was the "most vicious and cruel form of slavery every devised" makes me wonder what he's comparing it to. I wonder if he just wants to watch the world burn with his words, which is something I think he's been proven to want to do in the past

Now I understand. Had King George III not have been Machiavellian in his approach America would have lost the Revolutionary War. The war gods award victory only to the apt, pure, and true.

We didn't own slaves. The early American settlers did but we were not around. Some folks like to point out obvious facts of the past and state it like it's ongoing or excepted.

Only a tiny percent wanted independence anyway. Its always the case... the country your born into is fine. If the US would have lost the war they wouldn't care about it now and would be perfectly happy. North Koreans are "perfectly happy" by and large too. You like what you know.

Well, he's not really an historian. Pop history comes and goes.

so banking and currency had nothing to do with it noam? try again

So then why were our founding principles so contrary to your analysis. Was it an intended lie or might you be putting a 20th century lens to 18th century reality?

Fundamentally, all people want to be free, and as long as the drive for freedom is kept strong, past wrongs can be righted although the process can be tragic. The 1860’s war between the states was a national tragedy that shouldn’t have happened, and the blame lies squarely with yank busybodies-all thinking southerners knew the entire south was enslaved by slavery, and the southerners were obviously better positioned to gradually eliminate it harmoniously and without bloodshed. But the damn radicals just had to force the issue, and this country is still feeling the effects, which is just as tragic. See, history is not a coin with two sides, and if it were a shape it would be a horrendous hodgepodge of sides, which makes it so interesting to interpret. Just stick with my interpretations, and you’ll be all right. 😂😂😂😂

I came to the same conclusions that Noam did. I also agree that you don't have to dig deep to find it, but you must do some work.