@enhydra lutris

Parliament was the actual cause of the revolution, despite the appealing slogan of "Taxation without representation is tyranny."

One lone representative in Parliament was ostensibly all the colonists had been demanding. I don't believe for a second that the wealthy went to war over one representative in Parliament who could have very easily been outvoted every time the interests of the American colonists conflicted with the interests that Parliament and the King wished to serve.

I think the war was, from the outset, far more about rich people's economics and desire for total self rule than the slogans and ditties of the time revealed. IOW, I don't think farmers were really stirred to go to war against the Redcoats because of taxation without token, impotent representation or a thrupence tax on tea.

I think the decision to go to war was about wealthy importers and slave traders being taxed by Parliament and the rich people of another country making decisions for rich colonists that were to more to the advantage of the former than the latter. After all, what is the point of being incredibly wealthy as were people like John Hancock and slave traders, if you can't even buy the laws and lawmakers that allow you to keep more of your wealth?

To put the very best face on it I can, I would say that, if nothing else, wealthy colonists wanted the taxes they were paying to government to stay in, and benefit, the same country as they lived in. Thomas Jefferson, of course, wrote a much more self-serving version into the Declaration of Independence, but, whatever his faults, he was an extremely smart, gifted and politic man.

That is my take, anyway. In my view, my take is less simplistic than the official version that has come down to us via the Declaration of Independence and the righteous slogans the upper classes fed those who were to actually fight the Redcoats. I understand that having a different take than mine is simply that, a different take than mine.

As to self government and a government of their choosing, the mass of those fighting weren't in it for any such thing, or they would have insisted on getting it.

I never said that's what colonial troops were fighting for, nor does the definition of "revolution" require that the fighting troops be fighting for a government of their own choosing.

I don't think the same men as were wrapping their feet in rags against snow and ice and fighting with only enough bullets to fire only after they saw "the whites of their eyes" were the ones who decided to fight the Revolutionary War. When have troops who did the actual fighting ever decided that their nation should send them to war? I think the troops were those who had been were ginned up to fight the war after the deciders had decided there would be a war and used their skills and money and the skills of people like Thomas Paine to convince everyone else.

IMO, the troops eventually believed they were fighting for, at a minimum, independence from the monarch, which was a different system than the one they already had. That's all the definition of revolution actually requires. However, the hoi polloi did indeed have input into the Constitution, anyway, though I believe that only their state legislators got to vote on ratification. The input of the hoi polloi is the reason the Constitution now includes a Bill of {Individual} Rights (and not only the states' rights that legislators may have demanded). That was certainly more input than the hoi polloi colonists had had as to governance of the colonies by Parliament and King George III. To a species theretofore governed by one kind of monarch or another, that may have seemed like quite a lot.

What we initially got was a non-heriditary aristocracy, pretty much a plutocracy, though more of a simple oligarchy in some areas.

Not only do I agree, but I would say that is what we still have. However, I am not sure what distinction you are making between a plutocracy and an oligarchy.

plu·toc·ra·cy
plo͞oˈtäkrəsē/
noun
noun: plutocracy

government by the wealthy.
a country or society governed by the wealthy.
plural noun: plutocracies
an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.

ol·i·gar·chy
ˈäləˌɡärkē/
noun
noun: oligarchy; plural noun: oligarchies

a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.
"the ruling oligarchy of military men around the president"
a country governed by an oligarchy.
"the English aristocratic oligarchy of the 19th century"
government by oligarchy.

(Candidly, I thought a plutocracy was a combination of wealth and power--IOW, a legislator owned by the wealthy would be a plutocrat, whether or not the legislator is also wealthy; and I thought that plutocracy and oligarchy were synonyms. However, the definitions of plutocrat and oligarch above are different than I thought.)

All that said, the only issue about which I actually posted was whether the American revolution satisfies the actual definition of the word "revolution." And, yes, that is indeed a very simple matter and yes, it does. Not only was it a revolution, but it was the first time I know of that colonists overthrew the rule of the colonizing nation in order to be governed by their fellow former colonists.

#6.1.2.1.1
sufficient concessions, starting with representation, would very likely satisfied most of the movers and shakers. No concessions were forthcoming and things instead got worse. Wealthy and powerful types came to desire complete independence and the hoi polloi went along, get rid of George and his damn redcoats and taxes. Well and good.

As to self government and a government of their choosing, the mass of those fighting weren't in it for any such thing, or they would have insisted on getting it. What we initially got was a non-heriditary aristocracy, pretty much a plutocracy, though more of a simple oligarchy in some areas.

@HenryAWallace
I will say that, in my opinion, a "revolution" that leaves unaltered the fundamental economic arrangements of a country is hardly worthy of the name. Dictionary be damned.
Was the American Revolution the first ?
Maybe. But remember that the American revolutionaries were educated Englishmen, even if born elsewhere, and would have know about this and this.
Was ours the model for the French ?
Could be.

The causes of the French Revolution are complex and are still debated among historians. Following the Seven Years' War and the American Revolution,[5] the French government was deeply in debt. It attempted to restore its financial status through unpopular taxation schemes, which were heavily regressive. Leading up to the Revolution, years of bad harvests worsened by deregulation of the grain industry also inflamed popular resentment of the privileges enjoyed by the aristocracy and the Catholic clergy of the established church. Some historians hold something similar to what Thomas Jefferson proclaimed: that France had "been awakened by our [American] Revolution."
Wikipedia

History is never really settled. There is always room for argument and controversy.

#6.1.2.2.1

claiming the Revolutionary War of 1776 was not the inspiration for the French Revolution and/or was not a revolution at all is incorrect. It was both; and that has nothing to do with anyone's personal view.

I wrote a brief version of my personal view of the reasons for the American revolution in my reply to EL. You may certainly disagree with my view, and your view and his are entitled to as much respect (or as little) as is my view. However, the actual definition of "revolution" is not my personal view, nor is the impact of our revolution on the French. (Your view of why the American Revolution was fought seems closer to my own than to EL's but that has nothing to do with either of the two points about which you and I have been posting.

That the American Revolution was the inspiration for the French Revolution is an uncontroversial, historical fact that is unaffected by our respective personal views of history. Also a fact: the definition of "revolution" has nothing to do with bread riots or guillotines or Madame DeFarge or shooting the Tsar and his family and few remaining retainers in a basement. My prior post explained why the American Revolution did not include those things (and did not need to include them in order to qualify as a "revolution").

I assume you read the post of mine to which your are replying. I don't want to put words in your mouth but, even after reading the actual definition of "revolution," you seem to be saying that the only wars or uprisings that qualify as revolutions are those in which the poor take from the rich, or at least try to. However, the actual definition of revolution is about a war or uprising, insurrection, etc. to change a system. Had the French peasants grabbed the real and personal property of their rich neighbors, but remained the loyal subjects of Louie and Marie, that would not have been a revolution under common definitions of "revolution."

The Revolutionary War of 1776 was not only a revolution in the terms of common definitions of that word; it was the mold. Sure, someone else would probably have revolted to change systems of government and write a Constitution sooner or later, but we did it first.