Sooo, I've been reading some of the interesting posts here about the Committees of Correspondence and Safety, as well as the Sons of Liberty....but I'm confused about the conclusions being drawn. As a young college student, years ago, I became obsessed with these very subjects (the Boston factions) and have notebooks full of my research notes....which is what caught my attention - I hadn't thought of them in years! But, it sounds like you have dismissed them as nothing more than alternate groups of rich (merchants) leading the poor and underprivileged to fight a battle that was not their own - using them to undermine the monarchy. These are by no means a subject missing from our narrative or hidden from the public - they have been widely written about and discussed among Amer. Rev. scholars in academia for decades - now centuries. I don't believe it was as simple as another rich group leading an uneducated poor group to do their bidding without understanding the consequences. I promise, the written authorities on this subject are pretty deep - as are the fascinating primary sources. I honestly think they appear "hidden" because they are some seriously complex subjects - not many folks want to tackle them. I think you may be underestimating the exploited "poor". They may not have been fighting against too serious of infractions by the crown, but things were getting worse, and the propaganda machine was pretty talented. However, if the common folk were not relating to some of the propaganda message, it wouldn't have went very far, and I don't think they would have risked their lives/prosperity for empty messages. Let's face it...colonial "poor" actually had it pretty good on this side of the pond compared to their British counterparts. It is also a wise observation that much of this fight had left over genealogical underpinnings. Many of those who chose to risk everything to wage this battle were colonial native sons, a new generation where the majority were born here....but the stories and past history were not forgotten....they knew how the monarchy treated subjects on the fringe. I concur that they did not want to become another Irish or Scottish dumping ground/third rate class of citizen - and these fears were well founded based on Britain's past history, plus, ever-creeping policies that were disturbing. My confusion lies in the tone that makes it sound like this battle was just rich against rich, meant to undermine the monarchy unfairly. After looking through the lens of history at India and South Africa, I don't care what motives the colonists had, I'm just glad they broke free! Did it all work out perfectly? No...but I'm still happy with the efforts of our ancestors.