The New Yorker magazine is so set against the modern American "Tea Party" movement that it has gone so far as to come out against the original American Revolution, as well. The Americans back then, just like Republican voters today, were ignorant, according to the New Yorker:
In 1974, the historian David Ammerman wrote that it is obvious in retrospect that America wasn't going to play second fiddle in the British Empire indefinitely. "What is not so clear," Ammerman continued, "is that the pursuit of equality need have included violence or that the equality sought necessitated independence." Spend a little time with the venality, misinformation, hysteria, and violence that led up to the Revolution, and the picture becomes murkier. As Breen notes, "No evidence survives showing that the king or his ministers contemplated a complex plan to destroy American rights," yet a significant proportion of the American populace became convinced that this was the case.
Update: Welcome James Taranto/Wall Street Journal Best of the Web readers. Please consider bookmarking us, subscribing to our RSS feed, or signing up for our free daily mailing list. You can also follow us on Twitter or Facebook, and check out the rest of the site.