No True Scotsman fallacy

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Perhaps, but those limits didn't include limits on the Federal government employing a very similar regime of taxes to that imposed by Parliament.

With one very important distinction -- under the Constitution, taxes "shall be uniform" throughout the United States. The colonists were pissed not only because they weren't represented, but because some of those taxes were targeted only at them. That's a structural protection over what happened with the Stamp Act, for instance.

Anyway, like I said, I agree that the who mattered to them. But when you look at what else mattered to them, by looking at the Articles, and all the limitations placed on the central government in the Constitution, it is easy to see why the concept of a dictator would have been incredibly out of place.

I mean, just look at the 5th Amendment. The government was specifically barred from taking private property without just compensation. If one of the goals of the American Revolution was social levelling, to take ill-earned wealth from the privilieged aristocracy, then that part of the Amendment wouldn't have existed, and you'd have needed some governmental authority that could make such decisions/takings quickly, and redistribute them quickly as well. And that's the kind of policy that leads itself to a populist dictator.

[Galactus]

No, the "who" in the context of the revolution was either George III/Parliament, or the colonists. That's the "who" that mattered in the Revolution.

And my point is that it remained a matter of "Who", not of "What". Everyone agreed that the Lawful Government (whether that be the Crown, the Federal Government, or the Colonial Assemblies/State Governments) had the right to levy taxes, raise tariffs, etc. etc. No one (at least no one in any position of power) argued that tariffs or taxes were *inherently* wrong. Simply that these particular ones under dispute were.

Afterwards, this discussion came about from the comment regarding the likelihood of a dictator arising, and whether the policies of the government affect that likelihood. We weren't talking about dictators at the state level, which I don't believe makes even conceptual sense. The issue was national policies, since it was a national revolution, and whether or not a national dictator might arise. Everyone knew the national government needed some authority, but the question was "how much". That was the key question for Americans after the Revolutio

The very concept of "National" was what was under debate. Was the United States a federal state or an alliance of sovereign states? The end result (with the Constitution) was a "Yes" to the former. (indeed one of the big arguments in favour of the Constitution was precisely that certain questions such as tariffs, needed to be settled nationally, since various states were levying protective tariffs against other states)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And my point is that it remained a matter of "Who", not of "What". Everyone agreed that the Lawful Government (whether that be the Crown, the Federal Government, or the Colonial Assemblies/State Governments) had the right to levy taxes, raise tariffs, etc. etc. No one (at least no one in any position of power) argued that tariffs or taxes were *inherently* wrong. Simply that these particular ones under dispute were.

You're ignoring every other limitation and prohibition contained in the Constitution regarding federal power, in favor of focusing just on certain types of taxes. I don't think that paints an accurate picture of what colonists were thinking when forming the nation. And it also ignores the constitutional or other limitations that already were placed on state governments by their people, independent of what the Constitution said. So saying it is just a question of who would hold ultimate power, the state or the feds, contains the flawed assumption that the colonists wanted anyone to hold such power. They didn't. The states didn't have it, and they wanted to make damn sure the feds didn't either.

The very concept of "National" was what was under debate.

They knew they wanted a nation. And they knew, at some level, that the federal government would necessarily be the ultimate sovereign, so that "who" was answered as soon as they showed up to draft the Constitution. The debate as to what powers they'd give the federal government, and what limitations they'd place on it, was the key, because they wanted to make damn sure that there would be no chance of an oppressive central government.