Was it a Revolution or the imminent bankruptcy of the Slave Owning Washington's land speculation

The English colonies before the rebellion were already a bourgeois economy as was the mother country. So the American Revolution could not have been a Bourgeois Revolution.

England was restricting the growth of land speculating companies such as that owned by George Washington, which made vast claims of hundreds of thousands acres in the rich Ohio valley area. George had over extended his finances in his speculations and was threatened with bankruptcy. It was rebellion or humiliating bankruptcy for George.

Why was England so fond of the Natives. They weren't. England had a massive financial problem of their own resulting from their recent 7 years Global war. They were upset that the colonists like George did not want to pay for their fair share of maintaining the Empire.

It could that maybe it was the Americans who were the bad guys in this struggle. It is up for discussion.

The only visible gain of the Rebellion was getting rid of the Monarchy. A no doubt reactionary institution that should be destroyed everywhere today.

However it is Monarchist United Kingdom today that has National healthcare not us. Americans with their Presidential system can only imagine all the reforms enjoyed by their English comrades. Including a labor party, which however bad, is light years above the slave patrol party built by Jefferson.

I believe traditionalists will call this rebellion a Political revolution. Whether it is or not it just a issue of misleading semantics and hyperbole. By this low standard of revolution defining, it valid to call Obama election as a "Political Revolution".

Neither the Obama Revolution nor Jefferson Revolution were the least bit useful to the Working class of any era.

The indirect and totally unsubstantiated indirect benefits notwithstanding. The chaining together of the American and French Revolution for example was rather mechanical and not ideological.

The only positive result of the American Revolution for the French masses is the bankruptcy of the French Monarchy in its support of the American rebellion.

It is not as if America sent troops or any other form of aid to France to help repay the French masses for the huge debt owed by the American rebels.

Just imagine what a beautiful sight it would have been to see General Washington leading troops defending the gates of Paris.

Well our Marxist founding Fathers were not perfect either. The ones like James Cannon's peddling July 4 celebration of a phony revolution fetish. Unfortunately he was not alone. Marx also made the same mistake. However unlike Cannon who grew up in American with far more access to American historical document then Marx, as well as living in the US all his life and having the US as his sole priority did not have any of Marx's excuses.

Marx made other political mistakes like over focusing on the impossibility of an revolutionary movement in Czarist Russia. Exaggerating there same possibilities in Germany. Any comrade can make mistakes when not having in enough data. The only sins come from having the data and denying it. Hindsight is 20/20 for good reasons. Cannon choose not to see. He could have read Charles Beard. (1913) classic work, "Economic foundation of the American constitution" to clear up any delusions about the American revolution being a revolution in anything but the political sense. I call it a rebellion, one that divided the American and English working class to the detriment of both.

It is disingenuous for any Marxist to talking about political Revolution in the same vein as a Social Revolution. The election of Obama, Chavez, etc.... are examples of political revolution. But a revolution that does not really change anything for the better is no revolution at all. These types of revolutions are not revolutions for the Working class but only for the petty bourgeois.