​Every 70 to 80 years, America seems to hit a wall. The Civil War. The Great Depression. And now, a fractured society marked by economic instability, political dysfunction, and cultural decay. These aren’t random events; they’re symptoms of a deeper design flaw.

​

We’re told that our Constitution is the greatest ever written, and that capitalism is the engine of prosperity. But if that were true, why do we keep crashing into disaster? Why does a system built 250 years ago, one that allowed slavery, enshrined the right to bear arms, and designed for a small agrarian elite-still dictate how we live in a global, digital, industrial world?

​

Our Founding Fathers were not poor, enslaved farmers rising up against tyranny- they were, for the most part, British social elites: wealthy landowners, many of whom owned slaves. Their fight was not for basic freedoms they lacked, but for the freedom to maximize profit without interference. What they truly opposed was having to pay taxes and being constrained by the British monarchy. The American Revolution was not about liberty for all; it was solely about securing power, economic autonomy for the privileged few.

​

The American Revolution was driven by opportunity for personal enrichment and the Fear of British Reform: Britain’s growing abolitionist sentiment-especially after the Somerset Case (1772), which ruled slavery unsupported by English law- alarmed American elites. They feared that continued British rule could threaten their slave-based economy.

​

Preservation of Power: The Founding Fathers saw the Revolution as an opportunity to break away from a monarchy that was gradually evolving in its ethical stance. Through revolution, they were able to establish a new system that preserved their elite control, one that, at its core, continued to uphold institutions like slavery.

​

Britain’s Ethical Shift vs. America’s Entrenchment

​

• Britain was moving toward abolition, driven by religious, moral, and economic arguments.

• Britain's Abolition of Slave Trade (1807): Britain banned the transatlantic slave trade.

• Britian's Slavery Abolition Act (1833): Officially ended slavery across the British Empire.

• The American Founders, by contrast, enshrined slavery in their new republic, prioritizing unity among states and elite interests over human rights.

​

The Constitution: A Shield for Power, Not the People

​

The U.S. Constitution was not crafted to make all men equal or to protect individual rights. It was designed to safeguard the interests of its authors, their property, their profits, and their vision of power.

​

Documented Legally Sanctioned Slavery: The original Constitution included provisions that accommodated and protected slavery, such as the Three-Fifths Compromise and the Fugitive Slave Clause.

​

You might think that the Founders of the American Revolution, who claimed they went to war against a monarchy to secure freedom and equality for all, would have crafted a Constitution that allowed all people to participate in elections. But you’d be wrong. The original Constitution largely mirrored the British system, reserving voting rights solely for the wealthy elite. Far from a radical break, it was a continuation of a structure that prioritized property and privilege over universal representation and equality.

 

What exactly do so many historians find so bold or unique about copying the same voter rights from the British system, the very system that the founders committed treason against, launched an insurrection over, and fought a war to escape? How can a revolution be hailed as visionary when its new democracy exactly mirrors the political exclusions of the old regime?

​

Who Could Vote Under the Original Constitution?

​

• Only White male property owners were allowed to vote in national elections about 6 percent of the total population. 

• Voting rights varied by state, but most required:

  • Land ownership

  • Or payment of taxes

 

The Myth vs. The Reality

​

• The Myth: The U.S. was founded to protect religious liberty for all.

• The Reality: The Revolution was driven by economic interests, political autonomy, and elite power struggles.

• Religious freedom was not a central issue in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

 

What the Founders Actually Did

​

• The First Amendment (1791) did guarantee freedom of religion, but only after the Constitution was ratified, and largely to prevent government interference, not to promote universal tolerance.

• Many Founders were deists or secularists, skeptical of organized religion. They wanted to keep religion out of government, not necessarily protect it.

• Meanwhile, religious minorities- such as Catholics, Jews, and other non-Protestants, faced discrimination for many decades. One could argue that intolerance never truly disappeared, it simply changed form. Today, we’re seeing a renewed wave of persecution and disdain for religious beliefs, woven into the fabric of our politics, institutions, and public discourse.

​

The Second Amendment wasn’t written to defend citizens against tyranny; it was embedded to ensure that Founders could bear arms against anyone who dared challenge the architects’ vision of how government should be structured and controlled.

 

From the beginning, the Constitution served as a tool of appeasement, something to pacify the population and rally support for a new regime. But all of its promises were hollow. “All men are created equal” was a slogan, to rally the people, not a belief. 

 

The founders never lived by it, never governed by it, and never intended it to apply universally. It sounded noble, but it was never real. When they declared that “all men are created equal,” they weren’t speaking about the common citizen. They were referring to themselves- the political elite. The phrase, so often quoted as a universal ideal, was originally meant to affirm the rights of wealthy, land-owning men, not the broader population.

​

​​In addition to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers produced a series of documents designed to legitimize their new government and shape public perception. The Declaration of Independence, while poetic in its promise of liberty, served more as a rallying cry than a binding commitment to equality.

 

The Articles of Confederation, their first attempt at governance, collapsed under its own weakness, prompting a shift toward stronger centralized control. The Federalist Papers were crafted to sell the Constitution to a skeptical public, not to question its flaws. Even the Northwest Ordinance, which laid the groundwork for expansion, was steeped in calculated power dynamics. These texts weren’t written to empower the masses, they were written to secure control, manage dissent, and build a system that protected the interests of the few.

​

They didn’t dismantle monarchy to empower the people, they replaced a king with oligarchs, themselves. The throne may have vanished, but the exploitation remained. Capitalism became their instrument of greed, and slavery their foundation.

 

The people didn’t escape oppression; they simply traded a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system for a newly formed government of elite rule and exploitation. The promise of freedom was hollow replaced by a new system that solely served the powerful, while leaving the people with nothing more than empty promises and a bleak future, far worse than if they had never committed treason by turning on their own country and countrymen.

​

Contrary to what many historical scholars believe, there is nothing noble about treason, especially when, like our Founding Fathers, where their motive was not liberty for all, but the continuation of slavery, commandeering the national wealth of the British people for personal gain, power, and privilege. That’s not's not being heroic, or noble, it’s being totally morally bankrupt. The exact opposite of nobility.

​

Nobility, heroism is when you start a peaceful protest movement, for the betterment of your people and nation, like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, while being persecuted, with a resolve and determination, that even far supersedes your own life, safety, and well-being, if you can make a positive change for the people of your nation. There’s nothing noble in rebellion born of selfish ambition. Real nobility lies in self-sacrifice, choosing principle over power, and people over personal gain.

​

In steep contrast to the new American tyrants, the British King during this same period was relinquishing his power to a new system of government for the betterment of his people and nation. Through a series of reforms, Britain was actively moving toward the abolition of slavery, no matter the financial cost.

​

In Steep Contrast to the American Tyrants

​

When Britain abolished slavery in its empire through the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, the government followed with the Slave Compensation Act of 1837- paying out £20 million, a staggering 40% of the national budget at the time.

Completely opposite to the newly formed U.S. government and states, the British didn’t fight a civil war over the profits of slavery- rather, they were willing to pay a very steep financial price to end it.

​​​​