George Washington was not a signatory of the Declaration of Independence. You like to bring him up but I’m not even considering him. I’m talking about the fanatics who drive the movement. We do have their correspondence. We do know their thoughts. They wrote philosophically about the issues. There were debates, schisms, etc. They were baking arguments on thinkers like Hume and Locke.

You want a simplistic, crass, dismissive explanation. Sure, money was a motivation for some, but not for the 2 million regular citizens and I’d say many of the drafters of the Declaration. I think someone like Franklin was ideological. He was heavily involved in advising France in a way that demonstrates a level of benevolence

Again, we’re talking about motivations. I don’t have things like letters between Egyptian military leaders, large treatises, etc., like I do from the American revolution.

I think there’s a difference between motivations and justifications. I said Trump’s motivations were clear and conspicuous. Were his justifications valid? I believe not. Did he believe them? I think I’m his convoluted way, he did/does. He thinks everything is a game. It’s apparent from his demand on the Georgia Secretary of State that he invent the numbers he needed to make up the difference. I’m sure Trump believes that’s how it works and the he other side is doing the same, but–as I said earlier–we were never taking about validity. Were those 2 dozen reasons started in the Declaration of Independence all true? I don’t know, but it doesn’t really matter if we’re talking about motivations. And, yes, I think everyone who showed up for the coup believed there was fraud. Many Republicans accepted they had lost, but those weren’t showing up in Washington that day

If I’m looking for the motivations of the coup and the rioters, I’m going to look at what they and their propaganda said. And it says they wanted to delay accepting the electors. Trump said that explicitly. He specifically called in Pence to reject the electors. The rioters believed the election was fraudulent; that’s also apparent from their statements, posts, and media.

We have been talking about motivations, so what people said is absolutely relevant. We were never taking about the validity of the facts.

Again, you are speculating or citing sources that are speculating. I’m referencing actual evidence. It’s clear that we have an ideological difference so I’m just going to stop now.

What I’m saying is, look what people said and wrote–you, know–the hard evidence. You are speculating that their primary motivations were not recorded, so left little evidence. If you insist on sticking to your assumptions, there’s no way no way to resolve the difference.

I can just close by quoting their most direct explanations:

"when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great Britain, is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

*He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

*He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

*He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

*He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

*He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

*He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

*He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

*He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

*He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

*He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

*He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

*He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

*He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

*For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

*For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

*For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

*For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

*For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

*For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

*For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

*For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

*For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

*He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

*He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

*He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

*He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

*He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

For many, there were economic interests (in addition to fundamental grievances), but millions of regular people were motivated by ideology. That’s clear from the propaganda they were consuming

All along you’ve been saying it wasn’t ideological. From your own post:

"Resentment for the British Empire and her interference in colonial affairs bonded Americans of varying socioeconomic backgrounds on a philosophical level. The ideological break with the mother country promulgated by the Proclamation Line of 1763, particularly for governmental leaders and Virginia’s landed gentry, served to push the colonies into rebellion in the following decade. "

You can speculate about their motivations. That’s your right, but we do have the treatises, publications, propaganda, and letters.

You may believe that there was some simple, secret reason, but certainly for the vast majority, it was ideological. The people actually fighting were in on the idea. Those who weren’t fled to Canada, where even Toronto was a couple of farms and cabins at the time

How would having more money make them discontent? That makes no sense. If they’re doing so well in the empire, then stay. Enjoy the security. Don’t make an enemy of the most powerful force in the world.

It was ideological. Have you read anything contemporary leaders were writing at the time?

I think you have that backwards. The grievances were the motivation. The situation was the opportunity.

If they were content, they wouldn’t have revolted

The colonial governments had previously had influence over laws in that their elected officials would advise the governors. England shut that down. Patrick Henry made the “taxation without representation” argument ten years before the Declaration of Independence

This ignores the “without representation” part. England gutted colonies’ ability to govern