"Militia", what that meant then.

[The Grand Nudger]

You still can't tell me why. That's all I'm asking. Were the colonists represented in Parliament? I already know the answer is no, so it wasn't a dubious slogan at all.

If you've done reading on the topic, you'll know that they were aware they weren't being taxed as much. They were pissed that they didn't get a say in what was taxed, where, when and how much.

Except for the loyalists....ofc.  Do you think that the average rebel signed up to get a say, and do you think they got one?  We know that the propagandists of the revolution made this case.  I think it was a good case to make.  That doesn't mean it hasn't been used as propaganda Shell......

That's not the point. Your original post made it seem as if there was no voting mentioned at all in the original Constitution. It was mentioned in virtually every clause.

My original post said that there would be -no- right to a vote in the constitution until 1870.  There wasn't.  

Huh? You said it was largely the same government. Now you're saying they just had the same ideas.

Because it was, by any metric.  It contained the same people, the same laws, and the same execution.  Our laws are still, in some cases..identical to the kings law all these years later.  Again, this is one of the reasons that our state was stable.  We didn't even try to reinvent the wheel on that count.  

Your first assumption was correct. I've been an American Revolution (particularly in Boston) researcher and columnist for the past decade. I think the problem is you assume you're more familiar with it than you are.

So, there was a huge issue regarding compensation at the birth of our nation.  Sama alluded to it previously.  It got as far as a planned and panned military coup.  The militia was not, itself, regarded kindly by the people who wrote the second amendment.  Far from thinking that it was necessary for a free state to ensure it's yada yada yada..they considered the militia to be a militarily useless armed rabble.  It was.  They nevertheless wrote, into our funding document, a self serving lie about militias.  They also discredited those who sought compensation by raising the spectre of the militia volunteer.  Up to and including heroes of our revolution who we then sought to leave nameless.

The founding fathers were propagandists.  Yes, they were many other things.  Yes, I think that they were free thinkers..maybe not -actually- as free as they came back then..but I get the gist.  I;m not pointing it out as criticism.  Without propaganda they could have never succeeded.  They had to find ways to make their own aims the aims of many, many more people who generally had no common interest.

What you're talking about in paragraph 2 does not follow from paragraph 1. This is where you're losing me.

What would you call a person who writes something that we know they thought to be completely false into the constitution when it was, then, self serving in a tight spot?  What do we call people who refer to their right to rebel, but do not include this right..even though they were including shit they didn't believe?

We're talking about pre-Constitution presumed propaganda. I disagree that "no taxation without representation" was propaganda. I also disagree that the founding fathers were "first and foremost" propagandists. There were only a handful of them who could be called propagandists to any large degree. If you had cited the Boston Massacre as an example of propaganda, I'd have agreed, but you chose a fairly honest quote from James Otis (who likely heard it before then, but who popularized it for the AR).

James Otis wasn't the name of every man carrying a musket, Shell.  I used the quote precisely -because- it was a good slogan, and I do think it's a legitimate greivance, and it was true.  It was still a propaganda tool.  Many of the rebels would be taxed at a higher rate and find themselves completely unrepresented by the nascent american government. They talked a great game and had earnest people making the arguments...but what did they then do.....?

I would hope that any discussion knocking the founding fathers off the pedastal would help people to realize -why- "what they meant" is moot, today. They were no better a government than we have today...easily worse. Both ideologically and practically. We have their analogs alive, today, in government. They were "states rights" people with regard to disenfranchisement and slave patrols. They didn't think that the rabble should have guns, they hated the rabble - same as today. They thought that militias were a joke, same as today. They still paid lip service to all of it, just like today.....up to and including writing it in to our founding document. The shit that's in there didn't get there by accident, or in a vacuum. It;s in there because they were beholden to things they did't believe...and not beholden to things they had claimed to believe in. Same as today. Lobbying, special interests...these are just new words for an ancient problem.