American Revolution Rhetorical Analysis

Zinn is arguing that the American Revolution was not really an honest effort to create a fair and democratic society. Also, he argues, the Revolution was mainly a way of replacing the British with another elite the colonial or American one. The Revolution, then, did not really do much to change the experience of the working class and the poor. The elites were just interested in keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. They had the ability to do this by using democratic rhetoric.
During this time they tried to keep the poor, poor by taxing them for what they could .The Regulators saw that a combination of wealth and political power ruled North Carolina, and denounced those officials "whose highest Study is the promotion of their wealth." They resented the tax system, which was especially burdensome on the poor, and the combination of merchants and lawyers who worked in the courts to collect debts from the harassed farmers.(Tranny Vs. Tranny pg. 27) The tax system causing the lower class to start …show more content…
With all this going on the Stamp Act of 1765 accured. The British were taxing the colonial people to pay for the French war.it was war started and the poor was ready houses of fifteen rich people were to be destroyed, as pan of "a War of Plunder, of general levelling and taking away the Distinction of rich and poor."(pg 17)
The American revolution wasn’t honest they looked for ways to keep the upper class rich and the lower class poor money ruled this era. They wernt really interested in to much of anyting else that’s why they taxed the poor. They tried to convince the poor that they were doing honest work but as soon as the lower class was awaken to what was really happening. Rebilian came about something that they didn’t expect they deystroyed homes of the rich like Andrew oliver, Thomas Hutchinson, and many more. The lower class were tired of being at the bottom and ready to fight