> First place to start is the tribe infiltrated freemason It's plausible that the freemasons were tribe even back then, but I haven't personally seen evidence of it. > Washington riding to quell the whiskey rebellion. Muh representative. Standard politics, even for guys fighting a war of independance. > that pitted brother against brother was completely fabricated with the tribe once again up to their neck in it. It could only be the case that the king was in on it then. Why? Because he would have understood the symbolic importance of a tax on tea. A *huge* variety of social gatherings, and every day social functions, like business meetings, and family gatherings, and even just lunch and dinner, were organized around tea. It was considered simultenously quintessentially american, and quintessentially british. The tax on tea was therefore considered an attack on the family unit and their very way of life. The importance of it cannot be overstated. To tax it was no different than a punch to the mouth. And just like a punch to the mouth, it can and did start a bloody fight. And that wasn't the only insult from the crown. The question you really have to ask is not, *was 1776 a bad war*, but *would the u.s. be better off TODAY if it rejoined Britain?* To see Britain not only over run by immigrants, but the most lawless and violent variety, and the abuses it has committed against its own citizens in the name of punishing "hate speech", I must conclude the u.s. would *not* be better off under the arms and protection of the Queen. The Brits are no more competent at holding on to an empire, or preventing subversion, than any other nation. Britain does have one thing going, which is recognizing that democracy doesn't work. If they were smart they would even eliminate the MPs, and foster nationalism. Democracy is a fools errand.