Dates, key battles, main locations and cause... In single day. And i am noticing a pattern in the comments... "We dodged a bullet there"... exactly what my History teacher also said about it 25 years ago lol.
Back in the eighties we didn't cover it at all. We studied various periods of British history, specifically English history as I'm in England. Then for O Level (predecessor of GCSEs) history it was all about the social history of the UK. Stuff like the industrial revolution, the factory acts, the corn laws etc. When my son did GCSE history a few years ago one of the subjects they covered was the US westward expansion so he may have touched on it briefly.
I recall hearing an American say, "The Brits have never got over losing their most important colony." and thinking, "Our most important colony - that would be India."
We definitely made more money from India ,and the East . It has to be said that one of the main reasons for rebellion was due the the fact Britain was declaring war on slavery there were no slaves in Britain and American colonies feared a huge loss of income from slave liberation . Then you have the finance acts which was a tax they did not want , in the end it is always about money not freedom
One thing that is totally forgotten by Americans, is that it was not Americans that fought for independence. It was not Americans v British. The people that fought for independence from Britain, were British! The war of independence was fought between British subjects on both sides. A third of those British subjects in the 13 colonies didnt want independence & another third were not concerned either way. Lies have been taught to the American people concerning the whole issue of the early American nation, including how the US flag came about. The truth of that, is that it is a direct copy of the flag of the main trading company to the 13 colonies at that time. The British East India company flag, complete with its 13 red/white stripes representing those 13 British colonies in the 'new wotld'. The only difference the new nation made to the flag, was repkacing the British union flag canton, to the blue canton with yellow state stars. The 'good ole red, white & blue' eh! The tune to the American national anthem is an old English pub song & even the liberty bell was cast in Britain. America/Americans are very ignorant of their nations beginnings, which was a British beginning & Britain influenced much of it. Being the world superpower for most of Americas history, Britain also strenghened the US with its many inventions, knowledge & influence. America doesnt like to give any credit to Britain, when she was born of Britain & grew on the back of Britain!
It's also worth mentioning that a significant proportion of the 'British' forces were actually German so the American War of Independence might be an early instance of Britain and France defeating Germany
@denniswilliams160 Being at war with Britain around those times & a long history of conflicts between the two nations, the French helped the revolutionaries in the 13 colonies against the British state. They supplied arms & i believe helped with vessels. The statue of liberty was a gift from France, for gaining freedom from the British.
The bulk of those fighting, especially after the first few months, were French regulars and British deserters on the colonial side and mercenaries from Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and France with some British officers essentially making sure they got paid on the British side. During the 18th and into the early 19th centuries it was normal for many of those fighting to be mercenaries. A significant segment of those fighting for Napoleon a few decades later were Scottish mercenaries. This practice had existed for centuries, our term freelancer comes from mounted troops armed with lances who could be hired on a per charge basis to break enemy fortifications, but it really got codified with mercenary units operating like outsourcing companies and consultancies do today.
@@StephenBoothUK Great input Stephen, thank you! That goes with the fact that only a third of the colonists wanted indepenfence from Britain. Most were foreigners fighting against the British.
Sad to tell my American friends but in the end a major reason Britain lost at Yorktown was that the Royal Navy was sent to protect Barbados and Jamaica from the French because they were more valuable to Britain than the 13 colonies.
Not strictly true. For both powers the wealth of the Caribbean colonies exceeded the revenue from the N American ones - which were a net deficit as they supplied no revenue but Britain had to pay for their defence. However all European powers tended to leave the Caribbean during the hurricane season as the risk of losing ships - which were really expensive and took time to build - but generally headed to Europe for that season in peace time. In this conflict in previous years combatants had send some ships to Europe and some to the safer N American station. However this year the French commander, the Comte de Grasse sent his entire fleet north to support their rebel allies. Admiral Rodney, not being aware of this and being unwell returned to Europe with a small proportion of his fleet, sending the bulk under his subordinate Admiral Graves. It was the latter that suffered the decision [strategically] defeat that doomed Yorktown. If the more aggressive Rodney has sent his entire fleet north then its quite possibly he could have inflicted a heavy defeat on de Grasse as he did the following year. If this had happened Yorktown and Cornwallis's army wouldn't have been lost and a lot could well have changed. The rebels had already suffered mutinies due to lack of pay and equipment and a French defeat a year earlier would have tempered their willingness to continue supporting the rebels, to whom as well as committing troops they supplied gold, muskets, gunpowder and other equipment. You would likely have seen a compromise peace with a smaller US and the loyalists maintain control in other areas.
When I read this I do hope that the British ensured that any uprising in French colonies we supported what the French would have perceived as rebellion. In Algeria in the 1950s/60s I really hoped we supported their efforts, as there was a relatively peaceful transition across the British Empire in that period in comparison to France who seemed to want to crush any self determination by these countries people.
The British military had a bad communication issue and their commanders often worked against each other. This was true at Saratoga, it was true at Yorktown.
Speaking as a Brit here, we ware definitely upset about all that tea use dumped in the Boston.... It's tea first then water! Not water then tea 🙂↔️.. then we found out it was only Lipton tea and not yorkshire, after that we dident care 💅😘☕
Brits dont care and when I've seen American sitcoms mock us for losing independence I had no idea why Americans are so bothered. Brits still care a lot more and learn more about WW2 with Remembrance day and films etc. I learned nothing about American independence war at school lol. I think good for them celebrating 4th July. 🎉
Not to mention a huge part of the rebellion was the colonies thirst for land, and the brits saying you cant just massacre the indigenous population. If the Brits say you're treating the original inhabitants badly, you've gone wrong on a huge scale
That’s not true at all. That’s just modern indigenous apologetics. The Americans were expansionist as were the British as were the Indians no one was better than anyone
Nope you have it wrong i am from the hanover faction(warehime)of 13 original colonies and my grandma on my dads side is a mccoy my relative isaac mccoy started up the native reservation and kansas city the native sent help to the irish in ireland during the potatoe famine because of this i am english/austro-german i am no dummy to what was going on tell those red coats they're going to earn thier redwings another day when they're floating to heaven for touching our children your kinda slavery is over now
@@CityBoyinCountry remind me what trump has said about Greenland and what percentage has the US been at war in its existence? "others did it" is not an excuse for being the biggest warmongering nation in history. And no, the British had a treaty they stuck too. The yanks didn't
@@kendunton1 At that time the term England, Britain and Empire were used interchangeably and nobody from any of the constituent parts of the UK really gave it much thought. It wasn't until much later that various nationalist movements made it a big deal.
@@wcg19891 Well not really, the war of independence was more a world war as we were also fighting the Spanish and the French who sided with revolutionaries and both the French and Spanish fleets lost out and we gained control of many trading routes and territories and as such was large victory with a minor but painful loss.
@@wcg19891as sad as it is those losses would have been insignificant to the British at the time. As for wealth the Caribbean colonies were much more valuable (as trade was the main concern of the British , not land) and the big fear was losing the islands not the east coast of America.
I was in Dallas over July 4 in 1995, and my host and good friend ahd a huge twelve person dinner party for her friends. Every place setting except mine had tiny crossed flags - US and Texas. Mine had US and British flags! The lady opposite got uncomfortable when she realised that the guy opposite was a Brit and in her eyes a representative of the very enemy whose defeat they were celebrating. She asked me if I minded being present. I said, “No we celebrate the 4th of July in London every year as well!” “Really?” she said, “Why?” I replied “Because we are so glad you left!” She looked horrified, then my hosts roared with laughter and said, “That’s what we invited you for, Alan!”
I understand many loyalists rather than live in the new 'free' colonies moved north to what became Canada. Like many disputes it's never a strict yes or no. Some are fervently in favour, some are fervently against, some are 'don't know' and some couldn't care less either way.
Franklin was a Briton until 18months before 4th July 1776. He attended the coronation of King George III, his son participated. He actually argued against independence until that time.
You could point out to American friends, that if they had stayed in the British Empire, they would have abolished slavery 30 years earlier than they did historically. It would have saved them a Civil War.
There was still slavery in British India in the 1930s, although not among the ruling British themselves. Nevertheless Indians in the British Raj still kept slaves.
In 1778 the Brits were on the point of saying "good riddance" until France joined in, and couldn't resist Baldrick's cunning plan to bankrupt the dastardly Frenchies ( which worked despite not involving turnips). 😁
French support for the colonists, and the disastrous consequences it had for national finances, was a significant factor leading to the French Revolution. The eventual wars in Europe that followed were far more significant to England than the loss of some minor colonies on the other side of the Atlantic.
Turnips - that is what convicts were fed. Something most people don't seem to know on either side is that America was where Britain sent all its convicts, up until independence, after which we started sending them all the way to Oz, which is better known, Australians do know their history. One of the reasons the South had so little support for British rule is that it was the South where the convicts were sent. Also a reason the British didn't really care about keeping the colony, a large proportion had been sent there because we didn't want them, probably also partly explains why the South is so much worse off today than the North, where people generally went by choice, rather than on convict ships.
I had a History teacher that was not only American, but her degree had been on the revolutionary war. 16/17yo me got told I had to limit my research (I wanted to cover the reasons for the revolution) but in my first week I cited sources she'd never heard of to support conclusions that she's never even considered. Basically, my point was that there were no good guys, but that the Yanks pretty much wanted to ignore treaties with the natives (westward expansion) continue slavery (the timing of the declaration is pretty convenient, consider the rise of abolitionism within the UK at the time. Admittedly COULD be coincidental) and escape taxes they owed (and they DID owe enormous sums) America has never come to terms with the idea that they won independence SOLELY because they were too expensive to rule, especially after the enormous investment made to establish the colonies. A bunch of squatters :P Only around a third of Americans were particularly revolutionary. Another third was loyalists. The last third were just bystanders, as you'd expect. So, 2 thirds of the nation weren't exactly in support of the founding fathers. I cited the fact that the tea destroyed at Boston was imported legally with the proper taxes paid... and was CHEAPER than the illicit alternatives. It was a mob move to destroy competition, albeit done politely with an offer to pay the owner compensation. The REAL proof of the pudding is the fact that... the shining city on the hill was no better than anywhere else. And substantially worse than many places. Canada is not some dystopian tyranny, and the King is still the head of state there. US taxes are comparable to many places, with Americans typically arguing that they make more money (true) but ignoring that almost everywhere else actually has tax money used to improve citizens lives. (example: the US has something like $10k more disposable income, on average. But from THAT they have to pay for medical care AND they have to work substantially more hours to earn it too. Most other places get paid holiday as part of their compensation. It's all very difficult to compare... but I'd suggest if a concerted study were made to place monetary values on all the benefits enjoyed by citizens across the world, Europe could kick everybody else's arses handily and the US would lag pretty far behind. Money isn't everything) America is FAR more interesting when approached without the propagandist vision taught to Americans. No less grand, no less wonderful... but a hell of a lot more interesting. Just the revolutionary propaganda is a masterclass in rhetoric and political agitation (The Boston massacre, for instance. Used to fuel rebellion, but if anything it demonstrated the professionalism of British troops. An armed mob attacked 8 men, the provocation lead to a discharge despite orders not to fire on civilians. A tragedy, and one the British governer prosecuted and one of the founders defended the soldier in question. The US government proscutes whistle blowers for war crimes these days. Not soldiers for defending themselves, however tragic the circumstances)
Sounds like you had a good teacher. If she did this in the US, especially today, she'd be called a woke leftist and unamerican. Pathetic how many people in the US think.
@@daviddavies3637 "Sounds like you had a good teacher." How do you figure that? She did her degree on the war, but apparently did so rather incompletely, and she told him to limit his research. That last bit may have simply been practicable advice, but there was nothing said to indicate that she was a good teacher, unless you're reading into the account that she thought well of his research. "If she did this in the US, especially today, she'd be called a woke leftist and unamerican." There's not enough there to jump to that conclusion. "Pathetic how many people in the US think." Specially the actual woke left; not the conservatives who rightly call them out on it.
@@PJRayment And you've just made my point. I've dealt with enough brainwashed right-wing Americans to know exactly how this teacher would be viewed over there. The Conservatives in the US are the biggest problem within that country. You think the "woke left" are extreme? Nothing even comes close to the extremism of the right over there. And it's right to call them out on it.
@@MrGlenn442 "aaaaaand there it is." There's _what?_ How does my comment fit the description? What is pathetic about it? Your bald assertion isn't automatically true.
Americans are never taught about Somerset vs Stewart in 1772. This case in the English high court stated that slavery was illegal in England. As the majority of the founding fathers were slave owners, there was a rush to protect the institution of slavery in the 13 colonies. It was never about taxation and representation.
Yes it's all absolutely clear from the timing of the move to independence and the timing of the civil war that it was all about slavery. Same as today there is the MAGA movement which is ALL about white people retaining absolute control of the society by oppressing or expelling or impounding others.
That's a bit disingenuous. Slavery continued into the 1820s in British colonies, such as in the Caribbean, so it wasn't really a pressing threat in the Americas, not to mention that it was a consensus that slavery was on its way out (until the cotton gin made it economically more viable).
Bullshit. Please tell me how many slaves were owned by John Adams, Rufus King, Benjamin Franklin, etc. The British didn't outlaw the slave trade until 1807, and slavery itself until 1833.
The biggest misconception is that the King had any authority over the Colonies at all. It was already a Constitutional Monarchy, so all policies and decisions were made by parliament.
That is where you are mostly wrong, if we look at the history. First the king's spending and views did have a big impact on the American taxation at the time and it is was a personal debt of £600,000 the king appeal to Parliament to sort. Constitutional monarchy as it is today was not one big leap, it was a very gradual thing with many disagreement and issues. Even after the restoration of the monarchy, it is not as if there wasn't suspension of Parliament, and royal pergative. .It is also not as if the King was as completely hands off.The first prime minster so far as this is an actual concept at all, and it wasn't even called that. only happens around 40 year prior. The King could also dismiss a prime minister ad did so as late as 1834 as the prime minister is appointed by the King int eh first place as a representative of parliament.
@archiebald4717 err no you don't. I've provided the fact that the King appealed to Parliament to pay his debts through taxes. It is also his majesty's government you don't just get to say 'check the facts' with no rebuttal as if the King acted with no influence and had nothing to do with foreign policy at the time. Sorry you are wrong. The King and his views and ambitions had quite a lot to do with dissatisfaction in the colonies. Yes, royalists were supporting him in Parliament, but he was not some hand waving passive party like you imply. The concept of the neutral monarch is modern and always under threat.
Also, the concept of dominion in a constitutional monarchy is important as is the these were not parliament's 13 Collonies but the crown. He bitterly opposed their independence. If the were American MPs sitting in Westminster that would be a different matter, but they had no say over this. It was down to the crown the status of the colonies.
Another great misconception of Americans today is that the patriots were some sort of colonised people who had been conquered and persecuted by the British, rather as the people of India. Clearly, the indigenous tribes fall into this category, but the patriots were overwhelmingly British themselves. Indeed, one of the key complaints of the patriots was the British government's desire to stop further expansion westwards onto tribal lands. The tax to which they objected was essentially to pay for the maintenance of troops to protect the colonists from incursions, especially by the French to the north. It was considerably less than that paid by citizens back in Britain.
After 1763 there were no "French to the north." France lost the Seven Years War in North America. Canada was under British rule. The taxes charged to American colonials were to RECOUP the cost of the war and towards the British war debt. Such small redcoat garrisons as remained, were mainly to defend frontier settlers against Indian attacks such as the Pontiac Rebellion post 1763.
Let's not forget, also, that many thousands of the Brits arriving in the States through the 1700s were sent there involuntarily, with a one-way ticket courtesy of the British legal system. Losing those colonies meant we started sending convicts to Australia instead.
Reading all these posts about the "colonists" and basically fighting amongst themselves shows up a fact rarely mentioned these days, apart from descendants of the indigenous peoples, EVERYONE in the USA is an immigrant or the descendant of one, so does that mean that everyone is going to be sent back to their country of origin by the new government using their new immigration laws, and leave everything to the native Americans? NO, thought not. Pity really I would love to see the look on old trumpies face when he was informed he was being deported because his family were undocumented, after all, does he have documents?
Actually the troops were there to bail out the colonists when they encroached on native land and provoked war. Asking that they be paid for by the people they were defending was reasonable.
@@AndriyValdensius-wi8gw You are correct regarding French Canada, but the taxes were nonetheless in part to recoup some of the costs of defeating the French and improving the security of the colonists.
As a Englishman, I can honestly say I never give 4th July any thought. Watching this I did learn a few bits but it suddenly dawned on me that the yanks always say "the 4th of July" and every other date the print and say it the wrong way round
As an Englishman who worked and lived in the US for a few years, I used to (half) jokingly say to my American colleagues that I also was going to celebrate July 4th from now on. ‘Cos it’s your problem now, not ours!
Sorry, but Europeans are the ones who say the dates in the wrong order. It's just like any other number. The "tens"/"month" column is first because it has a bigger impact.
I have friends in Australia who now consider themselves Australians, but keep their US citizenship. To renounce costs thousands, and they said they would have trouble going back to visit relatives as they would like get rejected when they applied for ESTA. The main thing they hate is they still are taxed as US citizens. Only one other country in the world taxes their citizens who reside and work overseas. Eritrea charges 2% tax on any citizen living overseas. Also Eritrea does not allow renunciation of citizenship. Getting back to my main point. Taxation without representation is a big thing in the USA yet they are doing this to their own citizens living overseas. How hypocritical is that??
@@philtreman9944 Sure, as long as Australia has the United States to protect them, all is good. As to fascists, we still have our guns here in the U.S. how about you guys?
4th July 1829, Britain's first regular scheduled bus service began running, between Marylebone Road and the Bank of England, in London. This is more important than a bit of a squabble 1000's of miles away
Sorry, but not true. Britain's first bus service was started by John Greenwood and operated between Pendleton and Manchester in 1824, five years before London saw its first bus.
Yes, but did it happen on the 4th July ? In any case, who cares about Manchester ? Where is Manchester, anyway ? I've heard it's north of South Mimms Services somewhere. The first CIVILISED bus service was started in LONDON in 1829. What northern barbarians do, doesn't count. There. Fixed it. 🤣😅
I went through the British school system in the 1960s. We probably spent about 10 minutes out of seven years of history class learning about the American War of Independence. British written history goes back to the Roman period and there are far more interesting and important events than the independence of a few insignificant colonies in the 18th century. BTW India wasn't a British colony at the time, it was simply a place where Britain traded, and where the East India Company held authority over a few areas. The British Empire was in its infancy at the time of the revolutionary wars. A hundred years later it would grow into the largest empire the world has ever seen, and only disintegrated during my lifetime. If anyone today was going to care about 'losing' any of these colonies, then India, Australia, Canada and a third of Africa would rank much higher than a tiny part of North America we 'lost' over 200 years ago.
"BTW India wasn't a British colony at the time, it was simply a place where Britain traded," This is false the British East India Company owned the extremely wealthy region of Bengal(modern day Bangladesh, West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa).
@@algernonsidney8746 I notice you truncated the original quote. He said "a place where Britain traded, and where the East India Company held authority over a few areas". Yes that part was wealthy - in part because it had avoided the chaos after the self-destruction of the Mughal empire and the failure of the Maratha Federation to replace it with a stable replacement - which would have negated the need for the EIC to maintain large forces to protect its trading centres in India. However the EIC, with occasional British government support was still only a medium level power in India and it was only by the end of the Napoleonic wars that it had emerged as clearly the dominant power in India.
@@stephenpickering8063 I should have quoted included more of his comment but my point still stands. He actually contradicts himself. First he says that India was simply a place that the EIC traded which is false but then he claims that the EIC held authority over a few areas. In any case it would be inaccurate to refer to Bengal as a few areas, it was actually a huge and extremely wealthy part of the Indian subcontinent. "Yes that part was wealthy - in part because it had avoided the chaos after the self-destruction of the Mughal empire and the failure of the Maratha Federation to replace it with a stable replacement" This is false in the 20 or so years before the battle of Plassey which led to the effective EIC conquest of Bengal, the Marathas had invaded Bengal 4 times and laid waste to much of the are leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths. The Nawab was actually forced to pay tribute to them to keep his throne. Moreover the Maratha Federation was stable and the 1770's and 80's were actually a golden era for its military defeating all of its enemies including the British. "which would have negated the need for the EIC to maintain large forces to protect its trading centres in India." The EIC after 1757 was protecting an empire not simply trading posts as I have explained above. "it was only by the end of the Napoleonic wars that it had emerged as clearly the dominant power in India" This also false by 1805 the company had conquered most of what is today India.
@@algernonsidney8746 Dam, mis-clicked half way through a reply so will try again! a) India was a place that the EIC initially only traded but the collapse of any order in India forced them to develop military forces to defend their bases. Also while Bengal was wealthy it was still a relatively small part of India as well. b) Having said that Bengal was wealthy you then immediately contradict yourself by claiming it had been recently ravaged by repeated Maratha attacks, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and much destruction. c) If the Maratha's were that successful why was the centre of India power in the Ganges valley ravaged by invaders twice in a generation, 1st by the Persians in .the 1730's and then by the Afghans in 1761? They may have had some successes in the 70's and 80's when Britain was struggling with the ARW and multiple European opponents, with the French especially seeking to make a comeback in India but they made no inroads in the British positions in India. d) You seem not to have understood what I said. I pointed out the collapse of Mughal power and the lack of stability inside India was what forced the EIC to take on control of some territorial areas, which eventually led to domination of most of India. e) Britain was emerging as the dominant power by the end of the Napoleonic wars and much of that did occur under the leadership of Wellington who did leave ~1805 so I might have been a decade off from your definition when the EIC became the dominant power but there was still a lot of significant forces in India even after 1815.
65 former imperial nations celebrate their independence from us. Every 5/6 days on average, some portion of the 3-ish billion people living in our former colonies, gets to celebrate and have a party. You're all welcome, by the way. ...Not that you ever say "thank you"...
@@Historical-Stuffthe British had many treaties with the natives and the other European powers. One of the drivers of the revolution was British soldiers stopped colonists expanding into other's territories, getting themselves killed, and putting the treaties in jeopardy. And yes the following Americans treated the natives soooooo well. I'm guessing the trail of tears was because they were so happy?
In my school in London we sang the Battle Hymn of the Republic in morning assembly on the 4th of July every year. I took it as a mark of respect for the US. I have never met or heard of anyone in the UK lamenting the loss of the American colonies. No big deal is the general view.
Facts about the American war. It was part of the French wars. It was British colonials, not Americans; essentially a civil war. The British fought and won a war for the colonials, Indian war; this cost the crown a huge amount of money, it also cost the French a lot. The British asked for the money to be paid back, the colonials refused. The British put stamp duty on the colonials to get the money owed back, the French taxed their poor more. Not paying their war debt back resulted in the Revolutionary war and the French revolution, literally millions slaughtered because the colonials didn't pay their war debt back, imagine if the British didn't for WW2. The British garenteed the Indians their home lands after the war, the now Americans went back on this promise and took their lands. In short, not paying a debt resulted in millions dead and the indians losing their land. Something to celebrate on 4th July.
Oh yeh and Paul Revere was a coward captured by The British cried his eyes out, told them what he and the other guys were trying to do. The Brits took pity on his sobbing soul released him unharmed and he reached the Rebel lines almost 2 days after the other fellows! All documented on the day in military despatches yet somehow taught to millions of American children he was a hero because almost 100 years later his name fitted better in a song!
The “American’s didn’t pay the French for their help with the Revolution either. The French Revolution happened, so the French were too busy to claim their money back!
Another major factor besides taxes was the early stirrings of Manifest Destiny. Britain made terms with the natives not to expand further west, the rebels sought to keep expanding. There's also the fact that many of the Founding Fathers were salve owners and this was all happening in the wake of the Somerset case, though that's limited to leadership rather than the rank and file. "No taxation without representation" doesn't really hold water when you consider that a majority of people still didn't have a vote for over a century post-revolution.
'Manifest destiny' was the belief that the colonists were required by God to occupy the entire continent (although, quoting Philomena Cunk, 'it was already occupied by the native Americans, put there by mistake.')
@Slavir_Nabru and the majority of the colonists didn't pay taxes either. There wasn't any direct taxation of the colonists - it was tariffs on goods being imported where the money recouped for the defence of the colonies came from. At the time of the declaration of independence, the only tariffs being imposed on imports were on tea - a luxury at that time, just as it was in the UK. Most colonists weren't buying tea as it was too expensive anyway, without the tariff. It was only the rich landowners who were having to pay extra for their tea. The main driver of the war was the abolition of slavery movement in the UK and King George signing an agreement with the first nation tribes that there would be no more encroachment onto their lands. George Washington had a grudge against the British because he was turned down for promotion in the British army because of his involvement in a massacre during the 7 years war, when he was an officer in the British army. Shortly afterwards, he started the campaign for independence by paying for propaganda pieces in newspapers, denouncing the 'tyrannical King George ' and the whole no taxation without representation thing.
When I first went the USA . I was surprised when I was asked didn't we regret losing the colonies . It never crossed my mind . And when I did history at school it was not considered any thing of importance . It was not thought off as a big thing over here .
Japanese hardly talk about their atrocities in World War II. A lot of countries get amnesia when their country screws up. I would say pretty much everyone. I am an American high school history teacher and I struggle to talk about the Philipine-American War, Vietnam etc. But we at least have it in our state's standards. We sent the Olive Branch Petition to stop that horrible war and remain in the British Empire but with local control as the British later would give dominions. King George III just said "hang them all." It would be interesting to see what the world might have been like if we remained under the crown. Perhaps a permanent Pax Britannia
Whilst listening to a guide at the Museum in Yorktown VA who was telling us about the unjust taxes that were demanded by Britain the inevitable phrase "No taxation without representation" cropped up. I couldn't resist asking whether it was true that the Americans didn't pay the taxes anyway. The guide nodded and quietly admitted that it was true. The Americans standing around all looked a bit puzzled. Clearly this was new information to them.
The tea taxes were also to provide them with a quality product. Stale tea bulked up with other ingredients was commonplace in the colonies being provided by smugglers.
@witwicky5565 Yes definitely quality tea plucked by fresh faced maidens from the tea fields of Keighley, Harrogate, and Pontefract and sent over to the ungrateful colonials in Boston who didn't even know that milk is added AFTER the tea. The barbarians didn't even know what a tea cosy is for. Some of them would even put it on their head. Empire can be a terrible burden sometimes.
Here's the brutal truth for Septics- the British regard the WoI as a very minor footnote in our history- which stretches back to the Roman occupation of Britain in AD43. It wasn't even taught in school- the French revolution was far more significant because of it's impact on neighbouring countries and the rise of Napoleon. American's do not get taught world history- ie an objective version of events. They get taught an American-centric version. The US has virtually no history- especially compared to Britain, as a result, the WoI is perceived as a major event, whilst it seem so to Americans, it was a minor episode to the British, and that's how it is regarded to this day. Most Americans have no concept at all of the British perspective at the time of the WoI. The British had not long finished fighting and winning The Seven Years War- which saw the French ejected from both Canada and India. The war was hugely expensive, so the foreign policy of the British government of the day was to actively avoid any further expensive overseas involvements/conflicts. When the trouble developed in America, the British view was very much based on making a token show of force- a 'whiff of grapeshot' would settle the matter. When that did not work and things escalated, eventually the British government considered the 'value' of the American colonies to Britain, and balanced it against the cost of expanding the British military effort in America. The conclusion reached was that in economic terms, the American colonies were NOT worth making the effort to retain -ie it was considered to be futile to spend a vast sum of money and sending over a substantial military force to retain LOW VALUE colonies. From the British perspective, the emphasis was on -*-INDIA.-*- India was referred to as, 'The Jewel In The Crown' for very sound ECONOMIC reasons- it's where Britain made much of it's money, and it explains why India was retained within the Empire until 1947. Hence, the British government saw that to fight and win the WoI by deployed far more military resources- thereby spending a vast sum of money, simply made no sense. If American's thing that the British are remotely bothered by the loss of the American colonies, they are completely wrong in making such an assumption. The introduction of railways in the US from 1826 onwards was what really opened the country up and transformed the economy. At the time of the WoI, the British simply didn't perceive a great deal of value in the colonies compared to the expenditure that would be required to fight and win the conflict. In effect, the British 'wrote' the American colonies off and moved on to focus on India. I find it amusing how many Americans seem to have 'forgotten' that France, Holland and Spain provided very significant financial support, and in the case of the French- direct military assistance. I've encountered the simpletons online who chorus, "We kicked your ass in the WoI!" Erm...........No. Sorry to piss on your bonfire, but the British only made a token effort in the conflict, and the three aforementioned nations propped up the rebels financially and with direct military support. Had the colonies been perceived has being of high value by the British, history would have been very different- because they would have thrown far more military assets into the conflict. The French ruined their economy funding the WoI, and ironically, it came back and bit them in the backside in 1789. The economic woes caused by supporting the colonists in America, were a direct contributory factor which triggered the French revolution- so the British had the last laugh were the French were concerned. So, in summary, the WoI is perceived by the history STARVED Americans as a huge event, whilst the British regard it as a very minor incident. Bottom line? British people don't care one iota about the Wol and never really have.
Excellent. It's true, the Caribbean was deemed as more valuable than the thirteen colonies at the time. And the French and Spanish bankrupting themselves led to Britain ruling the world for over a century.
Let’s see how the British do with the wol that they are in with Islam. It will take more than a stiff upper lip and a rich history of the monarchy to win this one. If I am grateful for one thing that the British monarchy gave the United States it is our constitution that was based on the Tyranny of the monarchy. Funny you don’t hear anyone at speakers corner yelling long live the King. He is no wear to be found in this wol with Islam.
I teach high school American history. My students are very much aware of British amnesia regarding this war. I start American history with the celtic and germanic movements into Britain, Boudica etc, the English Civil War and how that impacted colonization here. I teach British history as our history up to 1776. I also teach western African history and native history as our history. This is pretty standard curriculum here. We Americans didn't just appear out of no where. We were the peasants of Europe brought over here to pick tobacco and eventually we gave the king the boot, which is what most of our ancestors wanted to do in the English Civil War. Win/win. We get our republic. You get King Chuck. Enjoy.
Basically yes. That's why Paul Revere never shouted the British are coming, because he was British, they all were, it would be more accurate to call it a civil war.
@@MrAoldham - he and many others. Also, they weren't being "quiet" about it as suggested in the video. They were sounding the alarm with church bells and they were firing guns to get the Minutemen alerted.
When I had just moved to the USA from England, a reenactor at a tall ship event asked me what people back home were doing to mark the War of 1812. I had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. I just said it must have been one of those minor skirmishes we never hear about.
The war that was a sort of US civil war that graded into a invasion of Canada and ended in an all out attack on native Americans when the invasion of Canada failed.
"the invasion of Canada failed" There's a surprise. What happened ? Did the Canadians shout "Boo !!!" very loudly ? Or maybe the Canadians used the wrong pronoun, and the Americans burst into tears, and ran home, looking for a safe space ? Or the silly Canadians forgot to give a trigger warning ?
1812? That was the Battle of Borodino, where Napoleon discovered why nobody in their right mind invades Russia, and Tchaikovsky wrote his famous 1812 Overture in celebration. That 1812. 7 years after Trafalgar and 3 years before Waterloo. Did something else happen that year?
@@cr10001 Not sure but always Worth checking out Capt Thomas Cockrane ...one of Nelsons wild lads.. famous for stealing and sinking the enemies bigger ships and being the South American Marine equivalent of Simon d Bolivar. Oh and capturing heavily defended ports and cities releasing them from the Spanish ...just make sure he got paid.. 😂.
English equivalent is banging on about 1966 - the Germans are like 'huh what football match?' One of the reasons the final battles went awry for the British is we decided to reinforce other battles such as Gibraltar. These fights helped secure India and were far more important to the empire
@@garyford3533 Yes you did. In the immortal words of Kenneth Wolstenholme 'some people are on the pitch. They think it's all over. It is now. It's four!' It was The World Cup. Geoff Hurst scored a hat-trick. Martin Peters scored the other goal. England beat Germany 4-2. Now that match is far more important to the English than a minor skirmish thousands of miles away. If on the other hand 1776 had been for the World Cup Final people in the UK would still be talking about it. They'd know every single detail. The Scots would still be laughing. The Irish would be scornful and the Welsh wouldn't really mind either way.
My recollection of how it is taught (some time ago!) is that, whilst The American War of Independence is taught as an important event in itself, it is put into the context of how it inspired/influenced another event .... the French Revolution. The latter is regarded as far more impactful to British identity (as in how we defined ourselves in opposition to it), the rise of Napoleon and subsequent Napoleonic Wars which arguably defined Britain as the dominant naval and imperial power of the 19th century.
The French Revolution and Napoleon pretty much defined the world we live in today. The USA becoming independent did, too, but to a much smaller extent, and not really until after WW2.
Yes - the upraising in France had the same anti-authoritarian underpinnings as the American Revolution. It took the island a little longer to reject the power of the King.
@@SeverityOne - while a republic, King George still had authoritarian control. His control was 85% of the basis for the Declaration of Independance - the specific grievances are written right in the document.
NO the start of our history was 140 years before. Massachusetts declared independence from England 1638/9 ... That was after my mothers' and fathers' families arrived here!!! :)>
@@imogenharrison3432 My Mother's Crocker family was in Devon long before Duke William did his thing in 1066:)> My Father's family came over with the Duke!
I'm English and I come from a long line of farm labourers and peasants. So the American war of Independance had no effect on them at all, they were just starving and uneducated without any vote or say in what went on. Just as they were during the Romans, Vikings, Normans, and all of the wars with the French, Dutch and eventually the Germans. Nothing really changes.
Not quite. After the Black Death with a much reduced population and a severe shortage of farm labourers, there was a big improvement in conditions for peasants and those at the bottom of the social classes. Lords of the manor could no longer order them about and they were free to travel rather than being bound to the local nobility.
I have just learnt more about American History in the last 8 minutes than in my entire lifetime. Not to be disrespectful but this is how important it is to a Brit.
@SamBrickell This is my British lack of social skills kicking in but I can't work out if I have offended or amused you. I never understood the relevance of the 4th July until I started watching American movies in the 80's. It is genuinely something not taught in our schools. I'm not a fan of the Royal family but I defend it because I understand it.
What people forget about the Boston Tea Party is that it happened on a very hot day. After they dumped the tea in the harbour, they let it steep for a while, threw in a ton of milk and sugar, stirred it with the rudders of the moored ships, then dunked in a giant jammy dodger for a nice spot of brunch.
I have a feeling the "Today I found Out" channel actually did a vid calculating how strong the tea would have been (I think the result was that even assuming the tea had brewed, there would have been too little to taste).
I prefer quality health care over free healthcare and higher taxes. "Free" healthcare is financially irresponsible in a country with a population of over 350 million people. The taxes to pay for it would be astronomical.
@@Howie-du7ovYou’re one of the highest taxed western nations on the planet…and you still have crap healthcare. It’s not an issue of not having the money, it’s an issue of priorities in expenditure.
@@Howie-du7ov You tune in to Donald Trump too much. If you want the reality of US health care go look at the average life expectancy figures for developed western nations.
The true losers of the AWI were the native tribes...😢😢😢😢 Within a few decades they were largely exterminated by the US and driven over the Mississippi😢😢😢😢😢☠☠☠☠☠......
@@stischer47 They didn't. Most of the Indian Tribes sided with the British, and this was a large part of the reason that they were treated mercilessly by the Americans immediately afterwards.
@@stischer47 yes....and no......Read up on the Continental Army's campaign against the Iroqois etc late in the war. Interesting fact....Only one tribe sided with the rebels...The Stockbridge Tribe....What became of them?? After the war they had their land stolen and they were mostly wiped out. By the new American government !!!
@stischer47 "As if the British.....eliminating... native tribes from the beginning." By "British" you of course mean "Americans." The 13 colonies each had their own charter and colonial governments with representatives etc. They were loosely affiliated to the British Crown but were to all intents and purposes self governing. That changed after the Seven Years War of 1756 to 1763 (Europe) or 1754 to 1760 ( in America). After that, British taxes increased to help pay off UK debts accrued. The "Americans" as they increasingly regarded themselves resented that. I personally think they were de facto Americans as soon as the Mayflower made landfall in 1620 tbh. The English were more than delighted to be rid of those Puritan nutjobs.
Fun fact - Benjamin Franklin’s son William was a loyalist. I remember this from watching a PBS programme. “Following imprisonment by Patriots in 1776 to 1778, William became the chief leader of the Loyalists. From his base in New York City, he organized military units to fight on the British side. In 1782, he went into exile in Britain. He lived in London until his death.” - Wikipedia
You missed the fact that most Americans tend to miss: the original declaration of independence was signed two days before, just as a bare declaration without reasons. It took another two days to agree on the justification for their unilateral declaration, and to get it written up with the famous calligraphy So 2nd July is another candidate for your Nation's birthday
As a footnote Robert Morris (1734-1806), an Englishman born in Liverpool is one of only two men who signed all three of America's founding documents, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.
I was working in the National Archives in the UK, digitizing ancient records. I happened to notice that the volume I was working on was written about the time of the "revolution". Not one word of comment!
Not much covered in British schools but it does give Americans another excuse for their favourite pastime of flag waving and chants of "USA USA USA" We look on bemused at our cousins across the pond and leave them to ponder on their work/life balance, healthcare charges, etc etc.
@@josephpadula2283 Lmao no it isn't, the war was basically won before you yanks decided to turn up. Plus Germany got nowhere close to taking over Britain, we're an island with the best navy in the world, they didn't stand a chance.
Tbh the attempted German invasion was lost in the air moreso than the sea. The Germans had a huge numbers advantage in the air. More than 2-1 compared to the Brits, but the German planes were inferior and rushed. They also had less air time as had to fly over from the continent to get over British airspace. They were highly effective at bombing the UK though...but still not even nearly as effective as the Brits were bombing Germany. This was done before any last minute American intervention. Not that I am not appreciative they did eventually turn up. The Americans combined with Brits, Canadians amd Aussies (as well as other commonwealth countries) had a resounding effect in liberating France.
The painting at 0:16 is The Death of Major Peirson, which depicts the British defence of the island of Jersey after a surprise French invasion in 1781. This is my home island and is a very famous painting (nothing to do with America or the War of Independence though).
The french were at war with england at that time Because of the revolution of the colonies. The only reason the colonies won was because france helped them,for which they should be greatful.
It’s also worth pointing out the French support for the colonies destroyed the French economy, which led directly to the French Revolution. So given that the British and Americans had diplomatic relations up and running pretty quickly, there’s a valid argument that the War of Independence had a much larger impact on France than it did on Britain.
Our history class spent a whole year studying the revolutions (plural!) over a period of some 200 years, the Agricultural revolution and the Industrial revolution in the UK, the American revolution, the French revolution, and the Russian Revolution. The American War of Independence may be a huge thing in the USA, understandably, but I'm afraid it didn't loom particularly large in the grand scheme of things in my study of history!
The American "Revolution" wasn't much of a revolution. It just removed the British as overlords. The rich colonial landowners were bosses pre 1776. The same landowning slaveholders were still bosses post 1783. That's supposed to be a "revolution" ?
In my history lessons, we also focused on the UK agricultural and industrial revolutions. In fact, I'd say we spent more time studying Jethro Tull's seed drill than the entire American revolution!
@dukkha1288 I know more about Jethro Tull's back catalogue than about the seed drill. I don't think they've done anything particularly good after "Broadsword and the Beast," though.
Twice I've met Americans who have somewhat smuggly (in good humour) asked me how I feel about July 4th..... I never have the heart to say that it doesn't even register as an event in my mind. I can see why the date is important to Americans because it is part of their national story and celebration.
I lived in the Republic of Ireland for a little while 2016-2017 . While walking the dogs on the beach one day in Tramore , I bumped into an American couple and began to chat . When she found out I was English, she apologised to me because her great grandmother was involved in the uprising of 1916 when the Irish kicked the British out . She was genuinely shocked when I told her that no one in Britain really cares about stuff like that and in reality of the huge empire of the British , “ it was just another Tuesday “ 😂😂😂
We left in 1922 and then the new Southern Irish government fought another civil war against the radicals in their own ranks who wanted to keep the war with Britain going.
@ well in 1922 they weren’t fully independent like they are now. They remained a dominion of the British empire with the king as head of state. Irish MPs swore an oath to the crown, the Royal navy controlled numerous Irish ports and the Free State had to pay the UK as part of its debts.
At grammar school, 70s and 80s it was touched upon very briefly as part how we were taught about the pre-Victorian part of the Empire. Literally a footnote dispite the two hundred year anniversary only being a couple of years earlier. I know it's the Americans' founding myth but it's still funny how they can't accept it means very little to us.
Comprehensive school in the 90s. We were taught a series of lessons called 'revolutions' in which we covered the USA war of independence, the French revolution, the agricultural revolution and then a bit about slave uprisings before moving on to learning loads about the abolition of slavery. We then went on to spend the same amount of time just covering the industrial revolution (mainly in the UK) which was probably too long - but then it was a far more important revolution to British history than the American one!
My history O-level in the late 70s was focused on British history in the period 1688-1815. I think we spent about five weeks on the AWI, compared to three or four on the Seven years War and nine or ten on the Napoleonic Wars. My home town did very well out of the 1976 bicentennial and the subsequent influx of American tourists. In 1980 a family paid me twenty quid to act as a tour guide for four hours, to show them all the historic places in town. I remember taking a photo of them behind a set of bars (probably not the original bars) in the Guildhall where the Pilgrim Fathers had been imprisoned; they very kindly sent me a copy after they got back home. Lovely people.
Another point, at that time, the Caribbean Colonies were worth 6 times more to the British than the American Colonies and they were more concerned that the French don't try to take them.
You're absolutely correct. American independence was covered in literally ONE history lesson when I was at school. That was 45 years ago, I'm not sure that they cover it at all these days.
When was I taught History in the 1960s, Hillcroft Comprehensive Tooting One of the problems of the Peace Agreement was the former slaves in the British Army and Navy during the America revolt the Slaves and their families camming free on enlistment and seeking refuge on Royal Navy troop ships in New York when the British left New York in 1783 the slave owners wanted their property back a British Army commander told these the former slave owners to go forth and multiply and threatened to bombard New York.
The only person who kicked up a storm in the English Parliament was Cornwallis because he owned a lot of land there, in order to shut him up, Parliament put Cornwallis in charge, they give him a Generalcy, a couple of ships and I think it was one Regiment of foot which Cornwallis was responsible for paying everything for. Reading between the lines of the records I would say that Parliament were hoping that Cornwallis stayed in America permanently, he was a pompous, arrogant, fop who made a lot of money in America and the spice and sugar islands of the Caribbean. He was not a slave trader per se but made a lot of money from slaves working on his islands. Definitely not a nice man.
The New Englanders were fighting against loyal militia units composed of men born in America much of the time. The whole King's' Royal Regiment of New York & families plus others moved to Canada after the revolution. Their sons had to fight off an American invasion attempt in 1813.
A lot of British army regiments in the 18th and even 19th centuries were equipped, dressed, armed, fed and paid by their colonel, who was usually a local aristocrat or landowner. I suppose it was a hangover from feudal times.
@@AndriyValdensius-wi8gw Yes ... this continued to some extent through the American Civil War, when (in the first year at least) there was no US federal income tax to pay for a large standing army. Fortunately men like Grant stepped up to train those new volunteer regiments. The Confederates were more reluctant to impose income tax -- the maximum rate was never more than 2% -- and their propagandists said this proved their "high tone" of moral superiority. (Robert E. Lee, for example, was rich enough to fund a lot of war effort himself)
I’m British and this is correct. There was a vote in parliament to decide whether to send over a new army to stamp the rebellion out, they decided it was a waste of money - too expensive to try. Instead they shored up what today is Canada and the rebellion ended at the Canadian border. Second point do Brits regret it? Yes. Some regret it in that if the rebellion had been defeated what is America today would have probably been more like Canada in nature. Less bombastic and actually more free than the USA is with better politics and a much better society.
Bullshit, the UK did send thousands of soldiers from the beginning and hired German foreign regiments. They could not sustain it, and in 1783 gave up. That does not mean the British did not do everything to maintain it. Also, the support of the French military was a deciding factor in 1783. And the British reacted the same in the Boer War. Although won, 10 Years later you had the Union of South Africa (which was the beginning of the power loss). They did the same thing in the Irish independence war. Could not maintain it, and was the basis for the British Commonwealth (which was the beginning of the final end of the Empire). The idea that the UK did not put in significant resources and manpower is not true. And they would have done the same if they could to maintain India in 1947. However, like every European colonial power, the appetite for a colonial conflict was gone, as were the resources directly after WWII. And when the UK had the power, they always send troops to maintain territory. The last time in 1982 during the Falklands War
Your statement at the end is laughable at present considering the state of Britain and Canada. Or are you enjoying your unarmed slide into globalist authoritarianism with an icing of radical Islam?
I wouldn't say more like Canada, but yes, both Britain and the USA would be freer and better. Also, both world wars would have been avoided. And much other destruction besides.
The American colonies were different from places like India where Britain imposed its authority over a local population. The 13 colonies were more like settlements, an extension, first of England, later Britain. One of the basic arguments which led to the revolution was that like other parts of Britain if they were paying taxes they wanted representation in Parliament. It was a family dispute. The revolutionaries were largely financed, armed and supported by France, who had an interest in weakening British trade with her colonies. At the decisive battle of Yorktown 5000 British troops along with around 3000 German mercenaries, roughly 8000, faced around 9000American colonists and 10,500 French regulars, roughly 18,500. So it wasn't quite the plucky heroic struggle of the oppressed as the stories tell. There were also 29 French warships off the coast of Virginia preventing British reinforcements and supplies. The colonies might probably have become independent sooner or later but maybe in a dfifferent way, closer links to Britain, a parliament like Canada. History would have been a different story.
@@peashooterc9475 Those were certainly victories and I wasn't saying the colonists weren't brave and well organised, just that the French involvement was a crucial factor in sustaining the revolutionary forces. If Howe had supported Burgoyne at Saratoga as he was ordered to do maybe the uprising could have been put down, though the seeds would have been by then sown. After Saratoga the French saw an opportunity to continue their rivalry with Britain. French naval forces in particular had a huge effect, 3,386 British merchant ships were seized and that wasn't down to the colonists but the French Navy. I once read an article by a retired American general who reckoned the logistics of supplying an army from 4000 miles away (in the days of sail) and bent quartermasters caused the British defeat. Oddly enough supporting the Americans led to The French Revolution because of the debt it left France in and the social problems that caused. Spain was France's ally also aided the colonists. In a way it could be thought of as a European war fought on American soil. The winners, though not right away, were the colonists. At the end of the war they along with France, Britain and Spain were all deeply in debt. Like I said, without meaning to take anything away from the Americans, it was more than an uprising by a few colonists.
@@thesedreamsarefree Well stated, thanks. The French and Indian War put both England and France in a poor position to have another go at it on top of what was going on elsewhere.
The average British person, not owning property or land, could not vote. But American Colonial oligarchs 'owned' MPs in the British Parliament by virtue of owning land.
What's often missed about the tea taxation (which you hinted at), was they actually wanted tax on tea, not to remove it. The reason being, the black market in tea was ruined when the East India Company could supply without tax, which is why they started throwing the tea into the water. If it was taxed, they could then undercut with black market tea and make more money.
The legit tea was taxed, but at lower rate than before, making it cheaper than the smuggled tea and killing off the smuggling business that had been quite a money earner.
@@sihollettThank you. Nobody ever seems to know this. I keep thinking, surely these patriots must have read books, then I think film and television has reinforced some misconceptions.
As a British guy now in my 50's.. I've always seen Americans as family...and the war of independence as a family falling out!..as far as im concerned we are cousins and we'll always have your backs...I know Britain ain't what is used to be but our ties are still strong in history and culture... it's my personal opinion.
Me too. Theres this constant back-and-forth with each other, even though we share blood. We focus on what makes us different rather than the similarities we share. At least we get on with Australia 😆
I grew up in America and I’ve always found this opinion very misguided. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are family in a very literal way but American don’t particularly like us or are like us. Bearing in mind that repaid our war debts this century, don’t imagine they did us any more favours than the Russians.
I'm Australian. Pretty much anyone outside of the USA knows the war of Independence was a minor backwater conflict. The UK had more important things and conflicts to deal with so only provided minimal military support to loyalist forces. Even then if the French hadn't intervened providing economic support, weapons, a naval blockade, and skilled military leadership and personnel the colony would have lost their rebellion. If the British were serious they would have been utterly crushed. The economics just didn't add up to defend a Territory that didn't contribute much to the wealth of the Empire. Unlike countries such as India. Military threats came from other European countries. Of course Americans are told an epic mythology bearing little resemblance to the truth.
Yes it it a blindness by Americans that the French were involved. The whole 2c tax bizzo was to pay a little toward the cost, bourne by the British taxpayer, of the Royal Navy, protecting Colonial goods and ships on the High Sea. From the French.
Pretty much the same in regards to what they teach about the reasons behind the civil war. The real reasons far less palatable to the sensitivities of woketivist society that are hidden behind the myth that it was about freeing the slaves. The irony is that the myth of the War of Independence being about 'Taxation without representation' is closer to the truth inasfar as why the southern states wanted to secede from the industrialised north where policy was driven from due to the population demographics, which shows that the entire basis of the USA was grounded on a pack of lies.
You can see why they went for "The British are coming!" over, "The regulars are coming out". First, the patriot bellowing to his fellows from a speeding horse makes for a much more memorable image. Second, "The regulars are coming out" sounds like the ad slogan for a constipation cure. Still a memorable image, but not quite the one required.
Bernard Cornwell (He of the 'Sharpe' series) did some digging and came to the conclusion - from the rest of his lifestory - that Paul Revere was, how shall we put it? An avoider of fights, all mouth and trousers, a yellow streak a mile wide. It is much more likely that, instead of riding to warn his fellow rebels, he was riding to get away from the feared Regulars. Is there any evidence that, having roused the countryside, he rode BACK to the front line to take charge of any troops? Nah. Apparently he stopped for a meal with his mates.
Never learned anything about it in school. Most of what was picked up during childhood came from US media which seemed to give way to nationalist mythology while growing up. Examining it at university, it seemed more along the lines of rich, white land/slave-owners trying to evade taxes and taking fright at a growing abolitionist movement in the motherland - if it was really about representation, that was offered part-way through the war but by then the hunger for power and enrichment was far greater. The bafffling lionisation of the 'Founding Fathers' despite most of them being overwhelmingly terrible people who created a massively flawed document/system designed purely to ensure that they and those like them would hold power over lesser folk continues to hurt the most vulnerable in the US today. By the war of 1812, the UK emphatically did not want them back.
To paraphrase the greatest of all men: To Americans, July 4th 1776 was the greatest day of their lives, to Brits, it was a Tuesday... or maybe a Thursday... ;)
Correct, it _was_ actually a Thursday. (Just looked it up out of idle curiosity - I have a calendar program I use to look up stuff like that for family tree research. This is assuming that the American colonies switched to the Gregorian calendar in 1752 when Britain itself did.). Given the comments here that the first signatures to the declaration were made on the 2nd July, _that_ would have been a Tuesday. :)
Americans are trained to worship their nation and military so much they think Brits feel the same towards the govt and crown. Many in the UK are indifferent to the monarchy at best or dislike them and believe Cromwell didn't go far enough in regards to republicanism (nothing to do with the US republican party before people misconstrue). Likewise, most people don't care about the colonies' independence and I actually am happy about the dissolution of the British Empire and am aware of the many evil things they did throughout history.
Beg to differ...British exceptionalism is alive and kicking. Also not sure if you were around in 1982, but the Falklands War brought out a lot of jingoism in the UK
@@martinh9099 must just be a case of me not really experiencing it much. I'm definitely aware of those who feel the British Empire was the best thing to happen to the world but I thought they were a tiny minority. I have to admit I'm not really sure how common people like that are.
British exceptionalism definitely exists, it's just not the offensively overt farce that Americans do for theirs. You see British exceptionalism mostly in the way our government and some people treat migrants and Europe.
As a Brit, and a new teacher in a US school district, at an induction meeting, the organiser made the statement,"What if Washington had not crossed the Delaware?" I replied,"You would all be speaking with a British accent!"
An excellent summary based on fact not mythology. As you said, the American colonies were not of any great value in the overall scheme of things, in fact the cost of the French and Indian wars (effectively started by George Washington when he ambushed a French negotiating party without orders) was borne by Britain defending these colonies hence taxes to recover some of that cost. The sugar islands of the Caribbean were much more valuable and had a greater impact on the allocation.of resources locally than India. However, the loss of the North American colonies did have one effect that went well beyond the Americas and that was the colonizing of Australia. Up to the break, the American colonies had been the destination for convicts in Britain sentenced to deportation and made up a good portion of the population at the time of independence. This forced Britain to look for another place to send her unwanted and convict settlements in Australia were developed to meet this need, planting the seeds of the modern democratic country that we all.know.
I specifically remember the phrase “The battle of Saratoga was the turning point of the war of independence” being drilled into my head in the 10th grade and having looked up that took place in 1777, makes a lot of sense now.
Great historical video, correcting many myths. I can fully understand (from an American perspective), that to have an annual celebration for your independence is important. We were taught very little about it when I went to school, not because we ultimately lost, but because (as you quite rightly say), it wasn’t important when compared to the rest of the empire.
The irony of it all was, British overseas colonies to this day are self governing anyway. Nobody knows why the colonials rebelled . Even the French Britains enemy at time were puzzled. Some say they the colonials wanted native Indian land, when King George expressly told them not to disrespect the native population. It’s their land after all. But they went ahead anyway and the rest is history.
Indian land was a big input, the British had given guarantees to the native tribes regarding not expanding the colonies further into certain areas of land, some of the leading colonists wanted those lands, declare independence and the British deals were irrelevant. Taxation and representation was a war cry to raise the rabble, the avereage working man colonist like his British equivalant had nothing to tax and had no representation anyway.
Yes. Pretty much. All that talk of "freedom" was pure bs. The freedom to make money, maybe. America has ALWAYS been that way. The United States of America. Bringing you pure bs since 1783.
According to Fred Anderson in his book "Crucible of War" Geo Washington farmed tobacco. Unfortunately for him, it was of poor quality and fetched low prices on the London market. Tobacco was in demand for snuff in those days, and the London fops and dandies were very picky. Washington's product wasn't "up to snuff." So he switched to wheat. But I suppose, in the end, they didn't want to be tied down to the Brits as exclusive customers. With more buyers, they could get better prices. Hence independence. It was always about $$$$$$$$ and it still is in "God's Own Country."
My grandfather (born 147 years after the conflict) agreed with "no taxation without representation" but claimed "we should've just given them [the 13 colonies, presumably] two MPs!"
@@lemdixon01 When the UK lost a war (and there was more than one), it was generally because the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Colonial Office and its military agents to rein in expenses. I wish countries around the world still followed such a practical arrangement.
As a Brit I always celebrate 4th of July as it was on this day in1862 that Lewis Carroll first told the story of 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' to Alice and her sisters on a boat trip up The Isis (River Thames) in Oxford 📖😇
At school I was very interested in history but was taught very little of the American war for independence. I have since worked with many Americans who sometimes have occasion to think they can rub our noses in the dirt with regard to the subject, I always remind them that of all the British derived nations around the globe America has turned out to be the most embarrassing. Thank you for the video, very engaging.
I was born in the 4th of July 1949. A few years ago I was working offshore, California. The native Americans were very friendly, but were outdone by the other Americans when they celebrated my birthday all along the coast with a massive firework display. Thank you from the UK! 😂
My mother sadly died at only 52. However, on what would have been her 65th birthday, New York set off two enormous 'roman candles' in the city centre. 11th Sept 2001. I was truely touched. Bless you all.
When I was a kid, I remember thinking Americans are just really obsessed with he film Independence Day, and had no idea it was a real national holiday... Thats how much it featured in our primary school education... Not at all! I've had various American friends who were confused at why it (or the US civil war) were not taught in schools here and if it was because we were annoyed we lost? Surprisingly, when you have literally thousands of years of your own island's history to cover in a syllabus, you tend not to bother talking about the histories of every other country too. As I grew up and read more about it, the only thing I get annoyed by is the amount of American propaganda, much of which seems almost mythologised, about the US war of independence that is just accepted about the war. At least get your facts straight about the beginning of your own country...
THe Boston tea party was the result of the British withdrawing the requirement for the East India company to ship to Britain first. The people who actually carried out the raid were smugglers of Dutch tea who now the British were undercutting. Something else many Americans ignore is that all the signers of the Declaration of Independence were land speculators who made money getting Indian land and selling it to settlers, George Washington was possibly the largest speculator. The British in the Quebec Act limited that land thses speculaors could steal from the Indians. They also ignore the fact that Britain was fighting a world war which countries whose combined population outnumbered the British about 3 or 4 to 1.
Yep. Like the "World Series" in baseball, a sport only played in north America and by some weird Japanese. It's derived from the girls' (in England) game of Rounders.
The British simply didn't grasp that they weren't just losing a strip of small colonies along the coast, they were losing a continent. Americans/colonists understood this. Prior to the revolution the colonists were already making inroads across the Appalachians and the great watershed of the Ohio River and Great Lakes, After independence Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark all the way to the Pacific because the French, like the British didn't grasp what they sold in the Louisiana Purchase. Prior to and then concurrent with that we were already taking the Spanish lands in the south. The British were looking at the Atlantic coast while the colonists (and then Americans) were already looking west.
Another great video, Kaylin. I learned a lot. 🙂 Yes, modern Brits do not have angst about American independence. It happened almost 250 years ago, so the event itself is just a historical fact, like the Norman conquest of 1066.
British people vs British, French and Spanish people. Mainly. America didn't gain independence from anyone, as America wasn't a country. It became a nation. A group of states.
When I was at school in the UK in the 80’s we did cover the US War of Independence for a few short weeks. The Battle of Lexington and Concord sticks in my memory. I am a big fan of the US and its history. Although much shorter than British history, it is still fascinating. I particularly like the Civil War. My daughter is studying History at University and this is also one of her favourite periods.
@ yeah, me too I’ve lived in the UK I love following the history of the 2nd English civil war myself. But love history or anytime I try to read as much as I can.
Later of course the British did come back to the US, as part of the 1812 to 1814 war. The British Navy sailed up the Potomac river and sacked Washington DC, burning down most of the City including the Capitol building, the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress what became the White House. For some reason, the Americans think that they won this later war! The scorched building, now known as the White House, had to be painted white to cover up the scars of the fire and it's for this reason that its new coat of white paint gave it its name
If the US had stayed loyal then they would have gained independence later, just as Canada did Just think it would have been likely that the whole of North America would have been in a single union with US and Canada combined, with free health care and no gun crime 😊
As a historian … perhaps google the Somerset v Stewart case four years before the Independence vote in Philadelphia. Somerset v Stewart held that slavery was unsupported by English law, not something that went down well in Virginia. Another thing that didn’t go down so well in Virginia was the Dunmore Proclamation which offered freedom to American slaves if they served in the British army. Many thousands did, including Harry Washington. Ralph Henry responded to his masters invocation of give me liberty or death by walking off his plantation and joining the British army. He met a former slave in Philadelphia and they had a child, she was described as born free behind British lines. The point of all this is to say Americans are fed what French writer Suzanne Citron calls Le Mythe National. These myths build national identity and cohesion but are usually bad or partial history. I remember walking through Trafalgar Square and some American friends not knowing who Nelson was, I surprised them by responding that most Britons don’t know or care who Jefferson was. I should add I say all this as someone raised near a village in England that does care about the revolutionary war, Warton in Lancashire. On Independence Day they fly the Stars and Stripes from the parish church. Warton was the home of the Washington family. You should definitely do a video from there on the Fourth of July.
To be honest, the more important war ( again virtually forgotten in the UK but not Canada ) is the war of 1812. The defeat ( and it was a defeat despite New Orleans and a few naval victories) of the US in that war guaranteed Canadian independence which has continued so far to this day. So far ....
At least Americans did not immediately scramble for British passports. It is one of the ironies of countries that gained independence from Britain that none of the citizens want to live in their own country anymore 🤔
What is also missing are the 500,000 Americans, the so-called Loyalists, who left the new nation to settle down in Ontario (Haut Canada) to avoid becoming Americans, since Canada was still a British ruled land at that time. Trump should read a little bit of history when it comes to Canada. It was populated by the French and by people _who didn't want to be Americans._
Brits, weigh in! What did you learn about the American revolution in school, if anything?
We briefly looked at the American revolution but it was very brief , it's just 1 of many countries we let go .
We didn't do anything about it
Absolutely nothing.
Dates, key battles, main locations and cause... In single day.
And i am noticing a pattern in the comments... "We dodged a bullet there"... exactly what my History teacher also said about it 25 years ago lol.
Back in the eighties we didn't cover it at all. We studied various periods of British history, specifically English history as I'm in England. Then for O Level (predecessor of GCSEs) history it was all about the social history of the UK. Stuff like the industrial revolution, the factory acts, the corn laws etc. When my son did GCSE history a few years ago one of the subjects they covered was the US westward expansion so he may have touched on it briefly.
I recall hearing an American say, "The Brits have never got over losing their most important colony." and thinking, "Our most important colony - that would be India."
Nobody is a sore winner like the US
We definitely made more money from India ,and the East . It has to be said that one of the main reasons for rebellion was due the the fact Britain was declaring war on slavery there were no slaves in Britain and American colonies feared a huge loss of income from slave liberation . Then you have the finance acts which was a tax they did not want , in the end it is always about money not freedom
At the time of the revolution Britains most important colonies were the west indies, they generated many times the income of the american colonies.
Lol. Inflated opinon of themselves? America! Whoever would have thought it.
Yes the Americans do not have an appreciation that India was far more important to Britain than America .
One thing that is totally forgotten by Americans, is that it was not Americans that fought for independence. It was not Americans v British. The people that fought for independence from Britain, were British! The war of independence was fought between British subjects on both sides. A third of those British subjects in the 13 colonies didnt want independence & another third were not concerned either way. Lies have been taught to the American people concerning the whole issue of the early American nation, including how the US flag came about. The truth of that, is that it is a direct copy of the flag of the main trading company to the 13 colonies at that time. The British East India company flag, complete with its 13 red/white stripes representing those 13 British colonies in the 'new wotld'. The only difference the new nation made to the flag, was repkacing the British union flag canton, to the blue canton with yellow state stars. The 'good ole red, white & blue' eh! The tune to the American national anthem is an old English pub song & even the liberty bell was cast in Britain. America/Americans are very ignorant of their nations beginnings, which was a British beginning & Britain influenced much of it. Being the world superpower for most of Americas history, Britain also strenghened the US with its many inventions, knowledge & influence. America doesnt like to give any credit to Britain, when she was born of Britain & grew on the back of Britain!
It's also worth mentioning that a significant proportion of the 'British' forces were actually German so the American War of Independence might be an early instance of Britain and France defeating Germany
@denniswilliams160 Being at war with Britain around those times & a long history of conflicts between the two nations, the French helped the revolutionaries in the 13 colonies against the British state. They supplied arms & i believe helped with vessels. The statue of liberty was a gift from France, for gaining freedom from the British.
The bulk of those fighting, especially after the first few months, were French regulars and British deserters on the colonial side and mercenaries from Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and France with some British officers essentially making sure they got paid on the British side. During the 18th and into the early 19th centuries it was normal for many of those fighting to be mercenaries. A significant segment of those fighting for Napoleon a few decades later were Scottish mercenaries. This practice had existed for centuries, our term freelancer comes from mounted troops armed with lances who could be hired on a per charge basis to break enemy fortifications, but it really got codified with mercenary units operating like outsourcing companies and consultancies do today.
@@StephenBoothUK Great input Stephen, thank you! That goes with the fact that only a third of the colonists wanted indepenfence from Britain. Most were foreigners fighting against the British.
My ancestors were Dutch origin, but living in New York...they were on both sides in the US War of Independance
Sad to tell my American friends but in the end a major reason Britain lost at Yorktown was that the Royal Navy was sent to protect Barbados and Jamaica from the French because they were more valuable to Britain than the 13 colonies.
Not strictly true. For both powers the wealth of the Caribbean colonies exceeded the revenue from the N American ones - which were a net deficit as they supplied no revenue but Britain had to pay for their defence. However all European powers tended to leave the Caribbean during the hurricane season as the risk of losing ships - which were really expensive and took time to build - but generally headed to Europe for that season in peace time. In this conflict in previous years combatants had send some ships to Europe and some to the safer N American station. However this year the French commander, the Comte de Grasse sent his entire fleet north to support their rebel allies. Admiral Rodney, not being aware of this and being unwell returned to Europe with a small proportion of his fleet, sending the bulk under his subordinate Admiral Graves. It was the latter that suffered the decision [strategically] defeat that doomed Yorktown. If the more aggressive Rodney has sent his entire fleet north then its quite possibly he could have inflicted a heavy defeat on de Grasse as he did the following year.
If this had happened Yorktown and Cornwallis's army wouldn't have been lost and a lot could well have changed. The rebels had already suffered mutinies due to lack of pay and equipment and a French defeat a year earlier would have tempered their willingness to continue supporting the rebels, to whom as well as committing troops they supplied gold, muskets, gunpowder and other equipment. You would likely have seen a compromise peace with a smaller US and the loyalists maintain control in other areas.
When I read this I do hope that the British ensured that any uprising in French colonies we supported what the French would have perceived as rebellion. In Algeria in the 1950s/60s I really hoped we supported their efforts, as there was a relatively peaceful transition across the British Empire in that period in comparison to France who seemed to want to crush any self determination by these countries people.
How'd that work out for them? I'll bet that now they wish they had kept the colonies under their rule.
If they knew then what they know now, 😂
The British military had a bad communication issue and their commanders often worked against each other. This was true at Saratoga, it was true at Yorktown.
Speaking as a Brit here, we ware definitely upset about all that tea use dumped in the Boston.... It's tea first then water! Not water then tea 🙂↔️.. then we found out it was only Lipton tea and not yorkshire, after that we dident care 💅😘☕
I you've ever had tea made by an American, you'd conclude they're still using the same batch.
It can be quite difficult to tell the difference between Lipton tea and harbour water.
Brilliant! 😄👍🫖
Brits dont care and when I've seen American sitcoms mock us for losing independence I had no idea why Americans are so bothered. Brits still care a lot more and learn more about WW2 with Remembrance day and films etc. I learned nothing about American independence war at school lol. I think good for them celebrating 4th July. 🎉
Those vast tea plantations in Yorkshire would never have survived!
Al Murray said it best.
We had a lucky escape.
😂😂
You beat me to it!🏴🤣🤣🤣🤣
'...and they've been working for us ever since!'
Another quote: "A good idea that got out of hand"
We did all the hard work the rebels didn’t want to pay for it.
Not to mention a huge part of the rebellion was the colonies thirst for land, and the brits saying you cant just massacre the indigenous population. If the Brits say you're treating the original inhabitants badly, you've gone wrong on a huge scale
That’s not true at all. That’s just modern indigenous apologetics. The Americans were expansionist as were the British as were the Indians no one was better than anyone
Nope you have it wrong i am from the hanover faction(warehime)of 13 original colonies and my grandma on my dads side is a mccoy my relative isaac mccoy started up the native reservation and kansas city the native sent help to the irish in ireland during the potatoe famine because of this i am english/austro-german i am no dummy to what was going on tell those red coats they're going to earn thier redwings another day when they're floating to heaven for touching our children your kinda slavery is over now
@@luisfilipe2023 loooooooooool. I rest my case
Everyone had a thirst for land back then. Today, just the Chinese and Russians have demonstrated thirst for other people's land.
@@CityBoyinCountry remind me what trump has said about Greenland and what percentage has the US been at war in its existence? "others did it" is not an excuse for being the biggest warmongering nation in history. And no, the British had a treaty they stuck too. The yanks didn't
For Americans, it was the War of Independence, the founding of their way of life. To England it was Tuesday.
England?
@@kendunton1 At that time the term England, Britain and Empire were used interchangeably and nobody from any of the constituent parts of the UK really gave it much thought. It wasn't until much later that various nationalist movements made it a big deal.
@@wcg19891
Well not really, the war of independence was more a world war as we were also fighting the Spanish and the French who sided with revolutionaries and both the French and Spanish fleets lost out and we gained control of many trading routes and territories and as such was large victory with a minor but painful loss.
@@wcg19891as sad as it is those losses would have been insignificant to the British at the time. As for wealth the Caribbean colonies were much more valuable (as trade was the main concern of the British , not land) and the big fear was losing the islands not the east coast of America.
@@ianjardine7324 true, for the English but not for the rest of us, even then.
I was in Dallas over July 4 in 1995, and my host and good friend ahd a huge twelve person dinner party for her friends. Every place setting except mine had tiny crossed flags - US and Texas. Mine had US and British flags!
The lady opposite got uncomfortable when she realised that the guy opposite was a Brit and in her eyes a representative of the very enemy whose defeat they were celebrating. She asked me if I minded being present. I said, “No we celebrate the 4th of July in London every year as well!”
“Really?” she said, “Why?”
I replied “Because we are so glad you left!”
She looked horrified, then my hosts roared with laughter and said, “That’s what we invited you for, Alan!”
@@alandjenkins I think Tom Baker said it best in Little Britain "We let America have its independence otherwise you would have cried!!"
Or, as I used to tell my American colleagues, July 4th is our Thanksgiving Day.
That's my opinion as well.
I was in California and said, “If it wasn’t for the British you’d be at work today”.
I think its so nice that the entire US celebrates my mums Birthday 🤣
Ben Franklin’s oldest son was a loyalist and moved to England rather than live in the newly “free” colonies.
I understand many loyalists rather than live in the new 'free' colonies moved north to what became Canada.
Like many disputes it's never a strict yes or no. Some are fervently in favour, some are fervently against, some are 'don't know' and some couldn't care less either way.
he was NJ govenor at the time.
Franklin was a Briton until 18months before 4th July 1776. He attended the coronation of King George III, his son participated.
He actually argued against independence until that time.
You could point out to American friends, that if they had stayed in the British Empire, they would have abolished slavery 30 years earlier than they did historically. It would have saved them a Civil War.
Brilliant point… ❤
Just like they did in India.
There was still slavery in British India in the 1930s, although not among the ruling British themselves. Nevertheless Indians in the British Raj still kept slaves.
There’s still slavery in the US and UK today. (It’s now called “Uber” ) 😉
It would also have put what is now the US into the Napoleonic Wars, possibly the Crimean War, and both World Wars from the outset of each.
In 1778 the Brits were on the point of saying "good riddance" until France joined in, and couldn't resist Baldrick's cunning plan to bankrupt the dastardly Frenchies ( which worked despite not involving turnips). 😁
Ah yes....the French. Conveniently airbrushed out...usually. Sort of flies in the face of Americans flocking to the flag. 😆
@@johngould3724 The Americans were accepting aid from France, while also attacking Montreal & Quebec at the same time.
Would have been a better story if it had involved turnips. We might have even cared more if they'd managed to squeeze turnips into it somehow.
French support for the colonists, and the disastrous consequences it had for national finances, was a significant factor leading to the French Revolution. The eventual wars in Europe that followed were far more significant to England than the loss of some minor colonies on the other side of the Atlantic.
Turnips - that is what convicts were fed. Something most people don't seem to know on either side is that America was where Britain sent all its convicts, up until independence, after which we started sending them all the way to Oz, which is better known, Australians do know their history. One of the reasons the South had so little support for British rule is that it was the South where the convicts were sent. Also a reason the British didn't really care about keeping the colony, a large proportion had been sent there because we didn't want them, probably also partly explains why the South is so much worse off today than the North, where people generally went by choice, rather than on convict ships.
I had a History teacher that was not only American, but her degree had been on the revolutionary war.
16/17yo me got told I had to limit my research (I wanted to cover the reasons for the revolution) but in my first week I cited sources she'd never heard of to support conclusions that she's never even considered.
Basically, my point was that there were no good guys, but that the Yanks pretty much wanted to ignore treaties with the natives (westward expansion) continue slavery (the timing of the declaration is pretty convenient, consider the rise of abolitionism within the UK at the time. Admittedly COULD be coincidental) and escape taxes they owed (and they DID owe enormous sums)
America has never come to terms with the idea that they won independence SOLELY because they were too expensive to rule, especially after the enormous investment made to establish the colonies. A bunch of squatters :P
Only around a third of Americans were particularly revolutionary. Another third was loyalists. The last third were just bystanders, as you'd expect. So, 2 thirds of the nation weren't exactly in support of the founding fathers.
I cited the fact that the tea destroyed at Boston was imported legally with the proper taxes paid... and was CHEAPER than the illicit alternatives. It was a mob move to destroy competition, albeit done politely with an offer to pay the owner compensation.
The REAL proof of the pudding is the fact that... the shining city on the hill was no better than anywhere else. And substantially worse than many places. Canada is not some dystopian tyranny, and the King is still the head of state there. US taxes are comparable to many places, with Americans typically arguing that they make more money (true) but ignoring that almost everywhere else actually has tax money used to improve citizens lives. (example: the US has something like $10k more disposable income, on average. But from THAT they have to pay for medical care AND they have to work substantially more hours to earn it too. Most other places get paid holiday as part of their compensation. It's all very difficult to compare... but I'd suggest if a concerted study were made to place monetary values on all the benefits enjoyed by citizens across the world, Europe could kick everybody else's arses handily and the US would lag pretty far behind. Money isn't everything)
America is FAR more interesting when approached without the propagandist vision taught to Americans.
No less grand, no less wonderful... but a hell of a lot more interesting.
Just the revolutionary propaganda is a masterclass in rhetoric and political agitation (The Boston massacre, for instance. Used to fuel rebellion, but if anything it demonstrated the professionalism of British troops. An armed mob attacked 8 men, the provocation lead to a discharge despite orders not to fire on civilians. A tragedy, and one the British governer prosecuted and one of the founders defended the soldier in question. The US government proscutes whistle blowers for war crimes these days. Not soldiers for defending themselves, however tragic the circumstances)
Sounds like you had a good teacher. If she did this in the US, especially today, she'd be called a woke leftist and unamerican. Pathetic how many people in the US think.
@@daviddavies3637
"Sounds like you had a good teacher."
How do you figure that? She did her degree on the war, but apparently did so rather incompletely, and she told him to limit his research. That last bit may have simply been practicable advice, but there was nothing said to indicate that she was a good teacher, unless you're reading into the account that she thought well of his research.
"If she did this in the US, especially today, she'd be called a woke leftist and unamerican."
There's not enough there to jump to that conclusion.
"Pathetic how many people in the US think."
Specially the actual woke left; not the conservatives who rightly call them out on it.
@@PJRayment And you've just made my point. I've dealt with enough brainwashed right-wing Americans to know exactly how this teacher would be viewed over there. The Conservatives in the US are the biggest problem within that country. You think the "woke left" are extreme? Nothing even comes close to the extremism of the right over there. And it's right to call them out on it.
@@PJRayment "Specially the actual woke left; not the conservatives who rightly call them out on it."
aaaaaand there it is.
@@MrGlenn442
"aaaaaand there it is."
There's _what?_ How does my comment fit the description? What is pathetic about it? Your bald assertion isn't automatically true.
Americans are never taught about Somerset vs Stewart in 1772. This case in the English high court stated that slavery was illegal in England. As the majority of the founding fathers were slave owners, there was a rush to protect the institution of slavery in the 13 colonies. It was never about taxation and representation.
Yes it's all absolutely clear from the timing of the move to independence and the timing of the civil war that it was all about slavery. Same as today there is the MAGA movement which is ALL about white people retaining absolute control of the society by oppressing or expelling or impounding others.
That's a bit disingenuous. Slavery continued into the 1820s in British colonies, such as in the Caribbean, so it wasn't really a pressing threat in the Americas, not to mention that it was a consensus that slavery was on its way out (until the cotton gin made it economically more viable).
Bullshit. Please tell me how many slaves were owned by John Adams, Rufus King, Benjamin Franklin, etc. The British didn't outlaw the slave trade until 1807, and slavery itself until 1833.
Thank you for saying that
Illegal in England, he said.
The biggest misconception is that the King had any authority over the Colonies at all. It was already a Constitutional Monarchy, so all policies and decisions were made by parliament.
That is where you are mostly wrong, if we look at the history. First the king's spending and views did have a big impact on the American taxation at the time and it is was a personal debt of £600,000 the king appeal to Parliament to sort. Constitutional monarchy as it is today was not one big leap, it was a very gradual thing with many disagreement and issues. Even after the restoration of the monarchy, it is not as if there wasn't suspension of Parliament, and royal pergative. .It is also not as if the King was as completely hands off.The first prime minster so far as this is an actual concept at all, and it wasn't even called that. only happens around 40 year prior. The King could also dismiss a prime minister ad did so as late as 1834 as the prime minister is appointed by the King int eh first place as a representative of parliament.
@@paulthomas8262 Check the facts.
@archiebald4717 err no you don't. I've provided the fact that the King appealed to Parliament to pay his debts through taxes. It is also his majesty's government you don't just get to say 'check the facts' with no rebuttal as if the King acted with no influence and had nothing to do with foreign policy at the time. Sorry you are wrong. The King and his views and ambitions had quite a lot to do with dissatisfaction in the colonies. Yes, royalists were supporting him in Parliament, but he was not some hand waving passive party like you imply. The concept of the neutral monarch is modern and always under threat.
@archiebald4717 an example of political influence: he forced Pit the younger to resign over Catholic emancipation.
Also, the concept of dominion in a constitutional monarchy is important as is the these were not parliament's 13 Collonies but the crown. He bitterly opposed their independence. If the were American MPs sitting in Westminster that would be a different matter, but they had no say over this. It was down to the crown the status of the colonies.
Another great misconception of Americans today is that the patriots were some sort of colonised people who had been conquered and persecuted by the British, rather as the people of India. Clearly, the indigenous tribes fall into this category, but the patriots were overwhelmingly British themselves. Indeed, one of the key complaints of the patriots was the British government's desire to stop further expansion westwards onto tribal lands. The tax to which they objected was essentially to pay for the maintenance of troops to protect the colonists from incursions, especially by the French to the north. It was considerably less than that paid by citizens back in Britain.
After 1763 there were no "French to the north." France lost the Seven Years War in North America. Canada was under British rule. The taxes charged to American colonials were to RECOUP the cost of the war and towards the British war debt. Such small redcoat garrisons as remained, were mainly to defend frontier settlers against Indian attacks such as the Pontiac Rebellion post 1763.
Let's not forget, also, that many thousands of the Brits arriving in the States through the 1700s were sent there involuntarily, with a one-way ticket courtesy of the British legal system. Losing those colonies meant we started sending convicts to Australia instead.
Reading all these posts about the "colonists" and basically fighting amongst themselves shows up a fact rarely mentioned these days, apart from descendants of the indigenous peoples, EVERYONE in the USA is an immigrant or the descendant of one, so does that mean that everyone is going to be sent back to their country of origin by the new government using their new immigration laws, and leave everything to the native Americans? NO, thought not.
Pity really I would love to see the look on old trumpies face when he was informed he was being deported because his family were undocumented, after all, does he have documents?
Actually the troops were there to bail out the colonists when they encroached on native land and provoked war. Asking that they be paid for by the people they were defending was reasonable.
@@AndriyValdensius-wi8gw You are correct regarding French Canada, but the taxes were nonetheless in part to recoup some of the costs of defeating the French and improving the security of the colonists.
As a Englishman, I can honestly say I never give 4th July any thought. Watching this I did learn a few bits but it suddenly dawned on me that the yanks always say "the 4th of July" and every other date the print and say it the wrong way round
As an Englishman who worked and lived in the US for a few years, I used to (half) jokingly say to my American colleagues that I also was going to celebrate July 4th from now on. ‘Cos it’s your problem now, not ours!
Sorry, but Europeans are the ones who say the dates in the wrong order. It's just like any other number. The "tens"/"month" column is first because it has a bigger impact.
@@SamBrickell nope, it's normal to go smallest to largest or largest to smallest, only Americans go middle, small, large.
I call it ''happy traitors day'', and that's all the thought I put into it 🤷😆
Go to Northen Ireland and see if they have any opinion on that day LOL
I have friends in Australia who now consider themselves Australians, but keep their US citizenship. To renounce costs thousands, and they said they would have trouble going back to visit relatives as they would like get rejected when they applied for ESTA. The main thing they hate is they still are taxed as US citizens. Only one other country in the world taxes their citizens who reside and work overseas. Eritrea charges 2% tax on any citizen living overseas. Also Eritrea does not allow renunciation of citizenship.
Getting back to my main point. Taxation without representation is a big thing in the USA yet they are doing this to their own citizens living overseas. How hypocritical is that??
Because that is not what taxation without representation means. They have representation and they have the right to vote on their representatives.
Hypocritical is have two allegiances. Tell your friends to pick a side, be Australians, or Americans.
@@Roland2665 "down under " every time . FREEDOM from Trump and Musk fascists.
Your friends would be rejected for ESTA? What is their background and what countries have they been to that would get them rejected?
@@philtreman9944 Sure, as long as Australia has the United States to protect them, all is good. As to fascists, we still have our guns here in the U.S. how about you guys?
4th July 1829, Britain's first regular scheduled bus service began running, between Marylebone Road and the Bank of England, in London. This is more important than a bit of a squabble 1000's of miles away
Sorry, but not true. Britain's first bus service was started by John Greenwood and operated between Pendleton and Manchester in 1824, five years before London saw its first bus.
Yes, but did it happen on the 4th July ? In any case, who cares about Manchester ? Where is Manchester, anyway ? I've heard it's north of South Mimms Services somewhere. The first CIVILISED bus service was started in LONDON in 1829. What northern barbarians do, doesn't count. There. Fixed it. 🤣😅
@AndriyValdensius-wi8gw Next, they'll be saying they invented fish & chips & not east London...
@@GenialHarryGrout haha love it
I went through the British school system in the 1960s. We probably spent about 10 minutes out of seven years of history class learning about the American War of Independence. British written history goes back to the Roman period and there are far more interesting and important events than the independence of a few insignificant colonies in the 18th century.
BTW India wasn't a British colony at the time, it was simply a place where Britain traded, and where the East India Company held authority over a few areas. The British Empire was in its infancy at the time of the revolutionary wars. A hundred years later it would grow into the largest empire the world has ever seen, and only disintegrated during my lifetime. If anyone today was going to care about 'losing' any of these colonies, then India, Australia, Canada and a third of Africa would rank much higher than a tiny part of North America we 'lost' over 200 years ago.
"BTW India wasn't a British colony at the time, it was simply a place where Britain traded," This is false the British East India Company owned the extremely wealthy region of Bengal(modern day Bangladesh, West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa).
@@algernonsidney8746 I notice you truncated the original quote. He said "a place where Britain traded, and where the East India Company held authority over a few areas". Yes that part was wealthy - in part because it had avoided the chaos after the self-destruction of the Mughal empire and the failure of the Maratha Federation to replace it with a stable replacement - which would have negated the need for the EIC to maintain large forces to protect its trading centres in India. However the EIC, with occasional British government support was still only a medium level power in India and it was only by the end of the Napoleonic wars that it had emerged as clearly the dominant power in India.
@@stephenpickering8063 I should have quoted included more of his comment but my point still stands. He actually contradicts himself. First he says that India was simply a place that the EIC traded which is false but then he claims that the EIC held authority over a few areas. In any case it would be inaccurate to refer to Bengal as a few areas, it was actually a huge and extremely wealthy part of the Indian subcontinent.
"Yes that part was wealthy - in part because it had avoided the chaos after the self-destruction of the Mughal empire and the failure of the Maratha Federation to replace it with a stable replacement" This is false in the 20 or so years before the battle of Plassey which led to the effective EIC conquest of Bengal, the Marathas had invaded Bengal 4 times and laid waste to much of the are leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths. The Nawab was actually forced to pay tribute to them to keep his throne. Moreover the Maratha Federation was stable and the 1770's and 80's were actually a golden era for its military defeating all of its enemies including the British.
"which would have negated the need for the EIC to maintain large forces to protect its trading centres in India." The EIC after 1757 was protecting an empire not simply trading posts as I have explained above.
"it was only by the end of the Napoleonic wars that it had emerged as clearly the dominant power in India" This also false by 1805 the company had conquered most of what is today India.
@@algernonsidney8746 Dam, mis-clicked half way through a reply so will try again!
a) India was a place that the EIC initially only traded but the collapse of any order in India forced them to develop military forces to defend their bases. Also while Bengal was wealthy it was still a relatively small part of India as well.
b) Having said that Bengal was wealthy you then immediately contradict yourself by claiming it had been recently ravaged by repeated Maratha attacks, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and much destruction.
c) If the Maratha's were that successful why was the centre of India power in the Ganges valley ravaged by invaders twice in a generation, 1st by the Persians in .the 1730's and then by the Afghans in 1761?
They may have had some successes in the 70's and 80's when Britain was struggling with the ARW and multiple European opponents, with the French especially seeking to make a comeback in India but they made no inroads in the British positions in India.
d) You seem not to have understood what I said. I pointed out the collapse of Mughal power and the lack of stability inside India was what forced the EIC to take on control of some territorial areas, which eventually led to domination of most of India.
e) Britain was emerging as the dominant power by the end of the Napoleonic wars and much of that did occur under the leadership of Wellington who did leave ~1805 so I might have been a decade off from your definition when the EIC became the dominant power but there was still a lot of significant forces in India even after 1815.
As a Brit, I always take time out in 4th July to wish a couple of my U.S friends "Happy Treason Day". Don't want to appear rude do I?
Britons are so proud that their country is the reason so many national holidays exist around the world!
65 former imperial nations celebrate their independence from us.
Every 5/6 days on average, some portion of the 3-ish billion people living in our former colonies, gets to celebrate and have a party.
You're all welcome, by the way. ...Not that you ever say "thank you"...
VERY TRUE.
Got to love Australia Day plus we get a day off for the king or queens birthday (even if it's not really their birthday)😂😂😂
@@Safetysealed lol...''hurrraaa'' laughs in english
We're self-aware, it's not the same.
The Americans also wanted to extend their territory into Native American land. Britain opposed this. Many native Americans fought on the British side.
You think Britain cared about the Natives? Do you have any idea what happened to the First Nations under the rule of British Canada?
@@Historical-Stuff , they were far better off than under American rule.
@@Historical-StuffThey certainly showed their preference for British rule when the United States tried to gain their support during the war of 1812.
@@Historical-Stuff IAM SURE YOU WILL INFORM US, HISTORY BUFF.
@@Historical-Stuffthe British had many treaties with the natives and the other European powers. One of the drivers of the revolution was British soldiers stopped colonists expanding into other's territories, getting themselves killed, and putting the treaties in jeopardy. And yes the following Americans treated the natives soooooo well. I'm guessing the trail of tears was because they were so happy?
In my school in London we sang the Battle Hymn of the Republic in morning assembly on the 4th of July every year. I took it as a mark of respect for the US. I have never met or heard of anyone in the UK lamenting the loss of the American colonies. No big deal is the general view.
Facts about the American war.
It was part of the French wars.
It was British colonials, not Americans; essentially a civil war.
The British fought and won a war for the colonials, Indian war; this cost the crown a huge amount of money, it also cost the French a lot.
The British asked for the money to be paid back, the colonials refused.
The British put stamp duty on the colonials to get the money owed back, the French taxed their poor more.
Not paying their war debt back resulted in the Revolutionary war and the French revolution, literally millions slaughtered because the colonials didn't pay their war debt back, imagine if the British didn't for WW2.
The British garenteed the Indians their home lands after the war, the now Americans went back on this promise and took their lands.
In short, not paying a debt resulted in millions dead and the indians losing their land.
Something to celebrate on 4th July.
Excellent summary. Sober!
Oh yeh and Paul Revere was a coward captured by The British cried his eyes out, told them what he and the other guys were trying to do. The Brits took pity on his sobbing soul released him unharmed and he reached the Rebel lines almost 2 days after the other fellows! All documented on the day in military despatches yet somehow taught to millions of American children he was a hero because almost 100 years later his name fitted better in a song!
The “American’s didn’t pay the French for their help with the Revolution either. The French Revolution happened, so the French were too busy to claim their money back!
@@Nauysvyf But the money spent on the war is the issue. Stamp duty was a direct way to try and get UK money back, raising taxes Frances way.
Another major factor besides taxes was the early stirrings of Manifest Destiny. Britain made terms with the natives not to expand further west, the rebels sought to keep expanding.
There's also the fact that many of the Founding Fathers were salve owners and this was all happening in the wake of the Somerset case, though that's limited to leadership rather than the rank and file.
"No taxation without representation" doesn't really hold water when you consider that a majority of people still didn't have a vote for over a century post-revolution.
This ''taxation' excuse needs to be busted.
Every person having a vote is not the meaning of no taxation without representation...lol
Good grief…
'Manifest destiny' was the belief that the colonists were required by God to occupy the entire continent (although, quoting Philomena Cunk, 'it was already occupied by the native Americans, put there by mistake.')
@Slavir_Nabru and the majority of the colonists didn't pay taxes either. There wasn't any direct taxation of the colonists - it was tariffs on goods being imported where the money recouped for the defence of the colonies came from.
At the time of the declaration of independence, the only tariffs being imposed on imports were on tea - a luxury at that time, just as it was in the UK. Most colonists weren't buying tea as it was too expensive anyway, without the tariff. It was only the rich landowners who were having to pay extra for their tea.
The main driver of the war was the abolition of slavery movement in the UK and King George signing an agreement with the first nation tribes that there would be no more encroachment onto their lands.
George Washington had a grudge against the British because he was turned down for promotion in the British army because of his involvement in a massacre during the 7 years war, when he was an officer in the British army.
Shortly afterwards, he started the campaign for independence by paying for propaganda pieces in newspapers, denouncing the 'tyrannical King George ' and the whole no taxation without representation thing.
When I first went the USA . I was surprised when I was asked didn't we regret losing the colonies . It never crossed my mind . And when I did history at school it was not considered any thing of importance . It was not thought off as a big thing over here .
Japanese hardly talk about their atrocities in World War II. A lot of countries get amnesia when their country screws up. I would say pretty much everyone. I am an American high school history teacher and I struggle to talk about the Philipine-American War, Vietnam etc. But we at least have it in our state's standards. We sent the Olive Branch Petition to stop that horrible war and remain in the British Empire but with local control as the British later would give dominions. King George III just said "hang them all." It would be interesting to see what the world might have been like if we remained under the crown. Perhaps a permanent Pax Britannia
Whilst listening to a guide at the Museum in Yorktown VA who was telling us about the unjust taxes that were demanded by Britain the inevitable phrase "No taxation without representation" cropped up. I couldn't resist asking whether it was true that the Americans didn't pay the taxes anyway. The guide nodded and quietly admitted that it was true. The Americans standing around all looked a bit puzzled.
Clearly this was new information to them.
The follow up question should have been, why were they asked to pay taxes? The reason was to pay for the war defending them from the French.
And the taxes were far lower than they would have been in Britain
The unjust taxes to help pay for the war Britain fought to keep them safe from the French and which nearly bankrupted Britain?
The tea taxes were also to provide them with a quality product. Stale tea bulked up with other ingredients was commonplace in the colonies being provided by smugglers.
@witwicky5565
Yes definitely quality tea plucked by fresh faced maidens from the tea fields of Keighley, Harrogate, and Pontefract and sent over to the ungrateful colonials in Boston who didn't even know that milk is added AFTER the tea. The barbarians didn't even know what a tea cosy is for. Some of them would even put it on their head. Empire can be a terrible burden sometimes.
Here's the brutal truth for Septics- the British regard the WoI as a very minor footnote in our history- which stretches back to the Roman occupation of Britain in AD43. It wasn't even taught in school- the French revolution was far more significant because of it's impact on neighbouring countries and the rise of Napoleon.
American's do not get taught world history- ie an objective version of events. They get taught an American-centric version. The US has virtually no history- especially compared to Britain, as a result, the WoI is perceived as a major event, whilst it seem so to Americans, it was a minor episode to the British, and that's how it is regarded to this day.
Most Americans have no concept at all of the British perspective at the time of the WoI. The British had not long finished fighting and winning The Seven Years War- which saw the French ejected from both Canada and India. The war was hugely expensive, so the foreign policy of the British government of the day was to actively avoid any further expensive overseas involvements/conflicts.
When the trouble developed in America, the British view was very much based on making a token show of force- a 'whiff of grapeshot' would settle the matter. When that did not work and things escalated, eventually the British government considered the 'value' of the American colonies to Britain, and balanced it against the cost of expanding the British military effort in America. The conclusion reached was that in economic terms, the American colonies were NOT worth making the effort to retain -ie it was considered to be futile to spend a vast sum of money and sending over a substantial military force to retain LOW VALUE colonies. From the British perspective, the emphasis was on -*-INDIA.-*- India was referred to as, 'The Jewel In The Crown' for very sound ECONOMIC reasons- it's where Britain made much of it's money, and it explains why India was retained within the Empire until 1947. Hence, the British government saw that to fight and win the WoI by deployed far more military resources- thereby spending a vast sum of money, simply made no sense.
If American's thing that the British are remotely bothered by the loss of the American colonies, they are completely wrong in making such an assumption. The introduction of railways in the US from 1826 onwards was what really opened the country up and transformed the economy. At the time of the WoI, the British simply didn't perceive a great deal of value in the colonies compared to the expenditure that would be required to fight and win the conflict. In effect, the British 'wrote' the American colonies off and moved on to focus on India.
I find it amusing how many Americans seem to have 'forgotten' that France, Holland and Spain provided very significant financial support, and in the case of the French- direct military assistance. I've encountered the simpletons online who chorus, "We kicked your ass in the WoI!" Erm...........No. Sorry to piss on your bonfire, but the British only made a token effort in the conflict, and the three aforementioned nations propped up the rebels financially and with direct military support. Had the colonies been perceived has being of high value by the British, history would have been very different- because they would have thrown far more military assets into the conflict. The French ruined their economy funding the WoI, and ironically, it came back and bit them in the backside in 1789. The economic woes caused by supporting the colonists in America, were a direct contributory factor which triggered the French revolution- so the British had the last laugh were the French were concerned.
So, in summary, the WoI is perceived by the history STARVED Americans as a huge event, whilst the British regard it as a very minor incident. Bottom line? British people don't care one iota about the Wol and never really have.
Excellent. It's true, the Caribbean was deemed as more valuable than the thirteen colonies at the time. And the French and Spanish bankrupting themselves led to Britain ruling the world for over a century.
Let’s see how the British do with the wol that they are in with Islam. It will take more than a stiff upper lip and a rich history of the monarchy to win this one. If I am grateful for one thing that the British monarchy gave the United States it is our constitution that was based on the Tyranny of the monarchy. Funny you don’t hear anyone at speakers corner yelling long live the King. He is no wear to be found in this wol with Islam.
I teach high school American history. My students are very much aware of British amnesia regarding this war. I start American history with the celtic and germanic movements into Britain, Boudica etc, the English Civil War and how that impacted colonization here. I teach British history as our history up to 1776. I also teach western African history and native history as our history. This is pretty standard curriculum here. We Americans didn't just appear out of no where. We were the peasants of Europe brought over here to pick tobacco and eventually we gave the king the boot, which is what most of our ancestors wanted to do in the English Civil War. Win/win. We get our republic. You get King Chuck. Enjoy.
BTW, Liverpool? Now that's a place I wouldn't brag about being from.
Scottish is cool though. The original red necks.
Wasn’t it just British men fighting other British men and then at the end of the fight saying oh we are called America now.
Basically yes. That's why Paul Revere never shouted the British are coming, because he was British, they all were, it would be more accurate to call it a civil war.
I made this argument on reddit before. But yes, that’s it. It was British vs British and the British won because the French and Spanish got involved.
I always heard he said "the redcoats are coming". But yes, a good point that they were mostly British fighting each other.
@@christinelamb1167 hebsaid "the regulars are coming"
@@MrAoldham - he and many others. Also, they weren't being "quiet" about it as suggested in the video. They were sounding the alarm with church bells and they were firing guns to get the Minutemen alerted.
Very interesting from my Canadian perspective! An example of what might have happened had the USA not rebelled.
When I had just moved to the USA from England, a reenactor at a tall ship event asked me what people back home were doing to mark the War of 1812. I had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. I just said it must have been one of those minor skirmishes we never hear about.
The war that was a sort of US civil war that graded into a invasion of Canada and ended in an all out attack on native Americans when the invasion of Canada failed.
The war of 1812 was an attempt by the USA to invade and conquer Canada, somewhat the same idea as Hitler and Stalin joint invasion of Poland in 1939.
"the invasion of Canada failed"
There's a surprise. What happened ? Did the Canadians shout "Boo !!!" very loudly ? Or maybe the Canadians used the wrong pronoun, and the Americans burst into tears, and ran home, looking for a safe space ? Or the silly Canadians forgot to give a trigger warning ?
1812? That was the Battle of Borodino, where Napoleon discovered why nobody in their right mind invades Russia, and Tchaikovsky wrote his famous 1812 Overture in celebration. That 1812. 7 years after Trafalgar and 3 years before Waterloo. Did something else happen that year?
@@cr10001
Not sure but always Worth checking out Capt Thomas Cockrane ...one of Nelsons wild lads.. famous for stealing and sinking the enemies bigger ships and being the South American Marine equivalent of Simon d Bolivar. Oh and capturing heavily defended ports and cities releasing them from the Spanish ...just make sure he got paid.. 😂.
English equivalent is banging on about 1966 - the Germans are like 'huh what football match?'
One of the reasons the final battles went awry for the British is we decided to reinforce other battles such as Gibraltar. These fights helped secure India and were far more important to the empire
NO WAR IN 1966, WITH GERMANY, OR DID I MISS THAT.
@@garyford3533 Yes you did. In the immortal words of Kenneth Wolstenholme 'some people are on the pitch. They think it's all over. It is now. It's four!'
It was The World Cup. Geoff Hurst scored a hat-trick. Martin Peters scored the other goal. England beat Germany 4-2. Now that match is far more important to the English than a minor skirmish thousands of miles away. If on the other hand 1776 had been for the World Cup Final people in the UK would still be talking about it. They'd know every single detail. The Scots would still be laughing. The Irish would be scornful and the Welsh wouldn't really mind either way.
And the average Briton literally cares more about 1966.
👍🏴 😊
My American English teacher in Australia, actually told us that Britain won the war because it freed them from a troublesome child.
My recollection of how it is taught (some time ago!) is that, whilst The American War of Independence is taught as an important event in itself, it is put into the context of how it inspired/influenced another event .... the French Revolution. The latter is regarded as far more impactful to British identity (as in how we defined ourselves in opposition to it), the rise of Napoleon and subsequent Napoleonic Wars which arguably defined Britain as the dominant naval and imperial power of the 19th century.
The French Revolution and Napoleon pretty much defined the world we live in today. The USA becoming independent did, too, but to a much smaller extent, and not really until after WW2.
Yes - the upraising in France had the same anti-authoritarian underpinnings as the American Revolution. It took the island a little longer to reject the power of the King.
@@raymort3 The island had beheaded their king a century and a half prior, and was a republic for 12 years.
@@SeverityOne - while a republic, King George still had authoritarian control. His control was 85% of the basis for the Declaration of Independance - the specific grievances are written right in the document.
@@raymort3England was a republic from 1649 - 1660, at the time of the American Revolution the monarchy had been restored over 100 years earlier.
The American war of independence was just a date in history to Britain. To America it is the start of your history.
NO the start of our history was 140 years before. Massachusetts declared independence from England 1638/9 ... That was after my mothers' and fathers' families arrived here!!! :)>
@@lewis7315 Doesn't matter when it was. 1638 is middle ages history to the UK, and ours can be traced back accurately 800 years previous.
@@imogenharrison3432 My Mother's Crocker family was in Devon long before Duke William did his thing in 1066:)> My Father's family came over with the Duke!
@@imogenharrison3432more than that, Stonehenge was built 3100bc and 927ad when England as we know it was founded
@@chriswalker8132 Briton maybe but not England, that didn't happen until the Angles started coming over after the Romans withdrew.
I'm English and I come from a long line of farm labourers and peasants. So the American war of Independance had no effect on them at all, they were just starving and uneducated without any vote or say in what went on. Just as they were during the Romans, Vikings, Normans, and all of the wars with the French, Dutch and eventually the Germans. Nothing really changes.
My family was exactly the same. Farm labourers and servitude. Couldn't read or write and probably didn't know what was going on in the next village .
Not quite. After the Black Death with a much reduced population and a severe shortage of farm labourers, there was a big improvement in conditions for peasants and those at the bottom of the social classes. Lords of the manor could no longer order them about and they were free to travel rather than being bound to the local nobility.
@@michaelmoule9727 .... there's another village?
@@xanx1234 "Oh, how I'd love to travel, Mr Fishfinger!"
@@xanx1234 😂
I have just learnt more about American History in the last 8 minutes than in my entire lifetime. Not to be disrespectful but this is how important it is to a Brit.
Happy to hear that. I promise you we don't consider it a "special relationship" and we never refer to the Atlantic Ocean as "the pond".
@SamBrickell This is my British lack of social skills kicking in but I can't work out if I have offended or amused you. I never understood the relevance of the 4th July until I started watching American movies in the 80's. It is genuinely something not taught in our schools. I'm not a fan of the Royal family but I defend it because I understand it.
You shouldn't know it. It's a blip on the radar of British history. Obviously Americans should know it.
What people forget about the Boston Tea Party is that it happened on a very hot day. After they dumped the tea in the harbour, they let it steep for a while, threw in a ton of milk and sugar, stirred it with the rudders of the moored ships, then dunked in a giant jammy dodger for a nice spot of brunch.
I have a feeling the "Today I found Out" channel actually did a vid calculating how strong the tea would have been (I think the result was that even assuming the tea had brewed, there would have been too little to taste).
😅
The jammy dodger touch had me chuckling. Well played.
A giant chocolate Hobnob, surely ? 😆
You have obviously never mistaken salt for sugar in your tea.
I was asked once if "we had thanksgiving over here in England?"... of course the answer was "Yes but we have ours at the beginning of July."
Just imagine. If you hadn't gained independence you might have had free health care.
🤣😅
I prefer quality health care over free healthcare and higher taxes. "Free" healthcare is financially irresponsible in a country with a population of over 350 million people. The taxes to pay for it would be astronomical.
@@Howie-du7ovYou’re one of the highest taxed western nations on the planet…and you still have crap healthcare. It’s not an issue of not having the money, it’s an issue of priorities in expenditure.
Yeah, and Yanks would all be speaking English.
@@Howie-du7ov You tune in to Donald Trump too much. If you want the reality of US health care go look at the average life expectancy figures for developed western nations.
The true losers of the AWI were the native tribes...😢😢😢😢 Within a few decades they were largely exterminated by the US and driven over the Mississippi😢😢😢😢😢☠☠☠☠☠......
As if the British didn't start eliminating the native tribes from the beginning.
Very true. The British restrictions on heading west was one of the main drivers of the revolution.
@@stischer47 They didn't. Most of the Indian Tribes sided with the British, and this was a large part of the reason that they were treated mercilessly by the Americans immediately afterwards.
@@stischer47 yes....and no......Read up on the Continental Army's campaign against the Iroqois etc late in the war. Interesting fact....Only one tribe sided with the rebels...The Stockbridge Tribe....What became of them?? After the war they had their land stolen and they were mostly wiped out. By the new American government !!!
@stischer47
"As if the British.....eliminating... native tribes from the beginning."
By "British" you of course mean "Americans." The 13 colonies each had their own charter and colonial governments with representatives etc. They were loosely affiliated to the British Crown but were to all intents and purposes self governing. That changed after the Seven Years War of 1756 to 1763 (Europe) or 1754 to 1760 ( in America). After that, British taxes increased to help pay off UK debts accrued. The "Americans" as they increasingly regarded themselves resented that. I personally think they were de facto Americans as soon as the Mayflower made landfall in 1620 tbh. The English were more than delighted to be rid of those Puritan nutjobs.
Fun fact - Benjamin Franklin’s son William was a loyalist. I remember this from watching a PBS programme.
“Following imprisonment by Patriots in 1776 to 1778, William became the chief leader of the Loyalists. From his base in New York City, he organized military units to fight on the British side. In 1782, he went into exile in Britain. He lived in London until his death.” - Wikipedia
he was gov of NJ and lived in Perth Amboy, his home is still there
You missed the fact that most Americans tend to miss: the original declaration of independence was signed two days before, just as a bare declaration without reasons. It took another two days to agree on the justification for their unilateral declaration, and to get it written up with the famous calligraphy
So 2nd July is another candidate for your Nation's birthday
As a footnote Robert Morris (1734-1806), an Englishman born in Liverpool is one of only two men who signed all three of America's founding documents, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.
@@richie4830 - very cool factoid!!
The only thing that I'm mad at wasting that bloody tea.
Yes, those courageous smugglers just could not compete with cheap British tea with its nominal tax.
FROM CHINA, NO BIG DEAL.
I suppose Tetleys Yorkshire Tea is grown on the tea fields outside Pontefract ? You reckon ?
@@AndriyValdensius-wi8gw Tetley's Yorkshire tea? You must mean Taylor's Yorkshire Tea.
@@Krispiefry Is there another brand?
I was working in the National Archives in the UK, digitizing ancient records. I happened to notice that the volume I was working on was written about the time of the "revolution". Not one word of comment!
Name the source or it did not happen!
Not much covered in British schools but it does give Americans another excuse for their favourite pastime of flag waving and chants of "USA USA USA"
We look on bemused at our cousins across the pond and leave them to ponder on their work/life balance, healthcare charges, etc etc.
Yes and the fact you are not speaking German is probably our fault !
@@josephpadula2283 Lmao no it isn't, the war was basically won before you yanks decided to turn up.
Plus Germany got nowhere close to taking over Britain, we're an island with the best navy in the world, they didn't stand a chance.
@
Had the best navy ….
@@josephpadula2283 Numerically superiority does not equal "best navy"
Tbh the attempted German invasion was lost in the air moreso than the sea. The Germans had a huge numbers advantage in the air. More than 2-1 compared to the Brits, but the German planes were inferior and rushed. They also had less air time as had to fly over from the continent to get over British airspace. They were highly effective at bombing the UK though...but still not even nearly as effective as the Brits were bombing Germany. This was done before any last minute American intervention. Not that I am not appreciative they did eventually turn up. The Americans combined with Brits, Canadians amd Aussies (as well as other commonwealth countries) had a resounding effect in liberating France.
The painting at 0:16 is The Death of Major Peirson, which depicts the British defence of the island of Jersey after a surprise French invasion in 1781. This is my home island and is a very famous painting (nothing to do with America or the War of Independence though).
The french were at war with england at that time Because of the revolution of the colonies.
The only reason the colonies won was because france helped them,for which they should be greatful.
As a Brit, I was asked once 'When do you celebrate your independence day?'
I replied 'From who, the Romans?'
It’s also worth pointing out the French support for the colonies destroyed the French economy, which led directly to the French Revolution. So given that the British and Americans had diplomatic relations up and running pretty quickly, there’s a valid argument that the War of Independence had a much larger impact on France than it did on Britain.
Our history class spent a whole year studying the revolutions (plural!) over a period of some 200 years, the Agricultural revolution and the Industrial revolution in the UK, the American revolution, the French revolution, and the Russian Revolution. The American War of Independence may be a huge thing in the USA, understandably, but I'm afraid it didn't loom particularly large in the grand scheme of things in my study of history!
The American "Revolution" wasn't much of a revolution. It just removed the British as overlords. The rich colonial landowners were bosses pre 1776. The same landowning slaveholders were still bosses post 1783. That's supposed to be a "revolution" ?
In my history lessons, we also focused on the UK agricultural and industrial revolutions. In fact, I'd say we spent more time studying Jethro Tull's seed drill than the entire American revolution!
@dukkha1288
I know more about Jethro Tull's back catalogue than about the seed drill. I don't think they've done anything particularly good after "Broadsword and the Beast," though.
Twice I've met Americans who have somewhat smuggly (in good humour) asked me how I feel about July 4th..... I never have the heart to say that it doesn't even register as an event in my mind. I can see why the date is important to Americans because it is part of their national story and celebration.
I lived in the Republic of Ireland for a little while 2016-2017 .
While walking the dogs on the beach one day in Tramore , I bumped into an American couple and began to chat .
When she found out I was English, she apologised to me because her great grandmother was involved in the uprising of 1916 when the Irish kicked the British out .
She was genuinely shocked when I told her that no one in Britain really cares about stuff like that and in reality of the huge empire of the British , “ it was just another Tuesday “ 😂😂😂
We had more serious problems in 1916.
Im English. How irish is this in Dublin. We love the English but we hate England.
They didn’t kick the Brit’s out in 1916. The Easter rising failed.
We left in 1922 and then the new Southern Irish government fought another civil war against the radicals in their own ranks who wanted to keep the war with Britain going.
@ well in 1922 they weren’t fully independent like they are now. They remained a dominion of the British empire with the king as head of state. Irish MPs swore an oath to the crown, the Royal navy controlled numerous Irish ports and the Free State had to pay the UK as part of its debts.
At grammar school, 70s and 80s it was touched upon very briefly as part how we were taught about the pre-Victorian part of the Empire. Literally a footnote dispite the two hundred year anniversary only being a couple of years earlier. I know it's the Americans' founding myth but it's still funny how they can't accept it means very little to us.
Comprehensive school in the 90s. We were taught a series of lessons called 'revolutions' in which we covered the USA war of independence, the French revolution, the agricultural revolution and then a bit about slave uprisings before moving on to learning loads about the abolition of slavery. We then went on to spend the same amount of time just covering the industrial revolution (mainly in the UK) which was probably too long - but then it was a far more important revolution to British history than the American one!
Ooooh, grammar school, get her.
My history O-level in the late 70s was focused on British history in the period 1688-1815. I think we spent about five weeks on the AWI, compared to three or four on the Seven years War and nine or ten on the Napoleonic Wars.
My home town did very well out of the 1976 bicentennial and the subsequent influx of American tourists. In 1980 a family paid me twenty quid to act as a tour guide for four hours, to show them all the historic places in town. I remember taking a photo of them behind a set of bars (probably not the original bars) in the Guildhall where the Pilgrim Fathers had been imprisoned; they very kindly sent me a copy after they got back home. Lovely people.
I remember Ulysses 13. Awesome.
Another point, at that time, the Caribbean Colonies were worth 6 times more to the British than the American Colonies and they were more concerned that the French don't try to take them.
You're absolutely correct. American independence was covered in literally ONE history lesson when I was at school. That was 45 years ago, I'm not sure that they cover it at all these days.
When was I taught History in the 1960s, Hillcroft Comprehensive Tooting One of the problems of the Peace Agreement was the former slaves in the British Army and Navy during the America revolt the Slaves and their families camming free on enlistment and seeking refuge on Royal Navy troop ships in New York when the British left New York in 1783 the slave owners wanted their property back a British Army commander told these the former slave owners to go forth and multiply and threatened to bombard New York.
yip me too (in NZ)
The only person who kicked up a storm in the English Parliament was Cornwallis because he owned a lot of land there, in order to shut him up, Parliament put Cornwallis in charge, they give him a Generalcy, a couple of ships and I think it was one Regiment of foot which Cornwallis was responsible for paying everything for.
Reading between the lines of the records I would say that Parliament were hoping that Cornwallis stayed in America permanently, he was a pompous, arrogant, fop who made a lot of money in America and the spice and sugar islands of the Caribbean. He was not a slave trader per se but made a lot of money from slaves working on his islands.
Definitely not a nice man.
The New Englanders were fighting against loyal militia units composed of men born in America much of the time. The whole King's' Royal Regiment of New York & families plus others moved to Canada after the revolution.
Their sons had to fight off an American invasion attempt in 1813.
A lot of British army regiments in the 18th and even 19th centuries were equipped, dressed, armed, fed and paid by their colonel, who was usually a local aristocrat or landowner. I suppose it was a hangover from feudal times.
Not just Cornwallis but Pitt and Charles Fox amongst others were part of the fairly powerful ‘American lobby’
@@AndriyValdensius-wi8gw Yes ... this continued to some extent through the American Civil War, when (in the first year at least) there was no US federal income tax to pay for a large standing army. Fortunately men like Grant stepped up to train those new volunteer regiments. The Confederates were more reluctant to impose income tax -- the maximum rate was never more than 2% -- and their propagandists said this proved their "high tone" of moral superiority. (Robert E. Lee, for example, was rich enough to fund a lot of war effort himself)
Didn't even learn about the British Raj or the Empire's war against slavery until decades after school.
I used to confuse my American colleagues when working across that pond by wishing them Happy Independence Day on 3rd September :)
I’m British and this is correct. There was a vote in parliament to decide whether to send over a new army to stamp the rebellion out, they decided it was a waste of money - too expensive to try. Instead they shored up what today is Canada and the rebellion ended at the Canadian border. Second point do Brits regret it? Yes. Some regret it in that if the rebellion had been defeated what is America today would have probably been more like Canada in nature. Less bombastic and actually more free than the USA is with better politics and a much better society.
Canada SUCKS, and is a lot LESS free than the U.S.!
You know nothing.
Bullshit, the UK did send thousands of soldiers from the beginning and hired German foreign regiments. They could not sustain it, and in 1783 gave up. That does not mean the British did not do everything to maintain it. Also, the support of the French military was a deciding factor in 1783.
And the British reacted the same in the Boer War. Although won, 10 Years later you had the Union of South Africa (which was the beginning of the power loss). They did the same thing in the Irish independence war. Could not maintain it, and was the basis for the British Commonwealth (which was the beginning of the final end of the Empire).
The idea that the UK did not put in significant resources and manpower is not true.
And they would have done the same if they could to maintain India in 1947. However, like every European colonial power, the appetite for a colonial conflict was gone, as were the resources directly after WWII.
And when the UK had the power, they always send troops to maintain territory. The last time in 1982 during the Falklands War
I'm British. I don't regret it at all, in fact I couldn't care less. I love America and its people, good luck to them.
Your statement at the end is laughable at present considering the state of Britain and Canada. Or are you enjoying your unarmed slide into globalist authoritarianism with an icing of radical Islam?
I wouldn't say more like Canada, but yes, both Britain and the USA would be freer and better. Also, both world wars would have been avoided. And much other destruction besides.
That picture shown at 0:14 is of the French invasion of Jersey in 1781 and has nothing to do with the war of American independence.
The American colonies were different from places like India where Britain imposed its authority over a local population. The 13 colonies were more like settlements, an extension, first of England, later Britain. One of the basic arguments which led to the revolution was that like other parts of Britain if they were paying taxes they wanted representation in Parliament. It was a family dispute. The revolutionaries were largely financed, armed and supported by France, who had an interest in weakening British trade with her colonies. At the decisive battle of Yorktown 5000 British troops along with around 3000 German mercenaries, roughly 8000, faced around 9000American colonists and 10,500 French regulars, roughly 18,500. So it wasn't quite the plucky heroic struggle of the oppressed as the stories tell. There were also 29 French warships off the coast of Virginia preventing British reinforcements and supplies. The colonies might probably have become independent sooner or later but maybe in a dfifferent way, closer links to Britain, a parliament like Canada. History would have been a different story.
Concord, Breed's Hill, Trenton, Princeton, Saratoga, Monmouth, Cowpens. Remember the Plucky.
@thesedreamsarefree
"History would have been a different story"
"And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle" as the French say.
@@peashooterc9475 Those were certainly victories and I wasn't saying the colonists weren't brave and well organised, just that the French involvement was a crucial factor in sustaining the revolutionary forces. If Howe had supported Burgoyne at Saratoga as he was ordered to do maybe the uprising could have been put down, though the seeds would have been by then sown. After Saratoga the French saw an opportunity to continue their rivalry with Britain. French naval forces in particular had a huge effect, 3,386 British merchant ships were seized and that wasn't down to the colonists but the French Navy. I once read an article by a retired American general who reckoned the logistics of supplying an army from 4000 miles away (in the days of sail) and bent quartermasters caused the British defeat. Oddly enough supporting the Americans led to The French Revolution because of the debt it left France in and the social problems that caused. Spain was France's ally also aided the colonists. In a way it could be thought of as a European war fought on American soil. The winners, though not right away, were the colonists. At the end of the war they along with France, Britain and Spain were all deeply in debt. Like I said, without meaning to take anything away from the Americans, it was more than an uprising by a few colonists.
@@thesedreamsarefree Well stated, thanks. The French and Indian War put both England and France in a poor position to have another go at it on top of what was going on elsewhere.
The average British person, not owning property or land, could not vote. But American Colonial oligarchs 'owned' MPs in the British Parliament by virtue of owning land.
Finally an American talking sense .
What's often missed about the tea taxation (which you hinted at), was they actually wanted tax on tea, not to remove it. The reason being, the black market in tea was ruined when the East India Company could supply without tax, which is why they started throwing the tea into the water. If it was taxed, they could then undercut with black market tea and make more money.
The legit tea was taxed, but at lower rate than before, making it cheaper than the smuggled tea and killing off the smuggling business that had been quite a money earner.
@@sihollettThank you. Nobody ever seems to know this.
I keep thinking, surely these patriots must have read books, then I think film and television has reinforced some misconceptions.
As a British guy now in my 50's.. I've always seen Americans as family...and the war of independence as a family falling out!..as far as im concerned we are cousins and we'll always have your backs...I know Britain ain't what is used to be but our ties are still strong in history and culture... it's my personal opinion.
Me too. Theres this constant back-and-forth with each other, even though we share blood. We focus on what makes us different rather than the similarities we share.
At least we get on with Australia 😆
I grew up in America and I’ve always found this opinion very misguided. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are family in a very literal way but American don’t particularly like us or are like us. Bearing in mind that repaid our war debts this century, don’t imagine they did us any more favours than the Russians.
@@erikdalna211 WE ARE ENGLISH, DOES ANY ONE LIKE US, WE ONES OWNED A THIRD OF THE WORLD, SOME PEOPLE MAY BE UPSET WITH US, THATS LIFE.
Bit like a drunken family fight on Christmas day 😂😂😂
@@222inverter - Agreed. The AWI wasn’t against the British public. It was a repudiation of King George and his governance over the colonies.
I'm Australian. Pretty much anyone outside of the USA knows the war of Independence was a minor backwater conflict. The UK had more important things and conflicts to deal with so only provided minimal military support to loyalist forces. Even then if the French hadn't intervened providing economic support, weapons, a naval blockade, and skilled military leadership and personnel the colony would have lost their rebellion. If the British were serious they would have been utterly crushed. The economics just didn't add up to defend a Territory that didn't contribute much to the wealth of the Empire. Unlike countries such as India. Military threats came from other European countries.
Of course Americans are told an epic mythology bearing little resemblance to the truth.
Yes it it a blindness by Americans that the French were involved. The whole 2c tax bizzo was to pay a little toward the cost, bourne by the British taxpayer, of the Royal Navy, protecting Colonial goods and ships on the High Sea. From the French.
Pretty much the same in regards to what they teach about the reasons behind the civil war. The real reasons far less palatable to the sensitivities of woketivist society that are hidden behind the myth that it was about freeing the slaves.
The irony is that the myth of the War of Independence being about 'Taxation without representation' is closer to the truth inasfar as why the southern states wanted to secede from the industrialised north where policy was driven from due to the population demographics, which shows that the entire basis of the USA was grounded on a pack of lies.
You can see why they went for "The British are coming!" over, "The regulars are coming out".
First, the patriot bellowing to his fellows from a speeding horse makes for a much more memorable image. Second, "The regulars are coming out" sounds like the ad slogan for a constipation cure. Still a memorable image, but not quite the one required.
Because they were mostly British. The regulars refers to the British army.
Bernard Cornwell (He of the 'Sharpe' series) did some digging and came to the conclusion - from the rest of his lifestory - that Paul Revere was, how shall we put it? An avoider of fights, all mouth and trousers, a yellow streak a mile wide.
It is much more likely that, instead of riding to warn his fellow rebels, he was riding to get away from the feared Regulars.
Is there any evidence that, having roused the countryside, he rode BACK to the front line to take charge of any troops? Nah. Apparently he stopped for a meal with his mates.
As Al Murray says, Britain losing America as a colony can be viewed as a lucky escape!
As an American who has heard the American Revolution hyped up my whole life, I find this entire video hilarious
If America had independence years later without war, it would have become one of the best countries to live in like Canada and Australia
It would certainly have become independent, though probably in a different form
"And then they went and spoiled it all by voting in a Tru-doh"
Never learned anything about it in school. Most of what was picked up during childhood came from US media which seemed to give way to nationalist mythology while growing up. Examining it at university, it seemed more along the lines of rich, white land/slave-owners trying to evade taxes and taking fright at a growing abolitionist movement in the motherland - if it was really about representation, that was offered part-way through the war but by then the hunger for power and enrichment was far greater. The bafffling lionisation of the 'Founding Fathers' despite most of them being overwhelmingly terrible people who created a massively flawed document/system designed purely to ensure that they and those like them would hold power over lesser folk continues to hurt the most vulnerable in the US today. By the war of 1812, the UK emphatically did not want them back.
To paraphrase the greatest of all men: To Americans, July 4th 1776 was the greatest day of their lives, to Brits, it was a Tuesday... or maybe a Thursday... ;)
Correct, it _was_ actually a Thursday. (Just looked it up out of idle curiosity - I have a calendar program I use to look up stuff like that for family tree research. This is assuming that the American colonies switched to the Gregorian calendar in 1752 when Britain itself did.).
Given the comments here that the first signatures to the declaration were made on the 2nd July, _that_ would have been a Tuesday. :)
@@merrygoblin Looks like you looked up the same thing I did. ;)
It's just struck how weird it is they called themselves patriots while rebelling against their motherland.
They still called themselves "Patriots" when they attacked their own Capitol building in 2021.
Americans are trained to worship their nation and military so much they think Brits feel the same towards the govt and crown. Many in the UK are indifferent to the monarchy at best or dislike them and believe Cromwell didn't go far enough in regards to republicanism (nothing to do with the US republican party before people misconstrue). Likewise, most people don't care about the colonies' independence and I actually am happy about the dissolution of the British Empire and am aware of the many evil things they did throughout history.
Beg to differ...British exceptionalism is alive and kicking. Also not sure if you were around in 1982, but the Falklands War brought out a lot of jingoism in the UK
@@martinh9099 must just be a case of me not really experiencing it much. I'm definitely aware of those who feel the British Empire was the best thing to happen to the world but I thought they were a tiny minority. I have to admit I'm not really sure how common people like that are.
@@martinh9099 That was a long time ago,look at Britain now!! I'm so glad my family emigrated to Australia!!
British exceptionalism definitely exists, it's just not the offensively overt farce that Americans do for theirs. You see British exceptionalism mostly in the way our government and some people treat migrants and Europe.
As a Brit, and a new teacher in a US school district, at an induction meeting, the organiser made the statement,"What if Washington had not crossed the Delaware?" I replied,"You would all be speaking with a British accent!"
They do all speak with British accents - slightly odd, out-dated ones. Apart from those with other European accents, like Spanish or Lithuanian etc.😂
An excellent summary based on fact not mythology. As you said, the American colonies were not of any great value in the overall scheme of things, in fact the cost of the French and Indian wars (effectively started by George Washington when he ambushed a French negotiating party without orders) was borne by Britain defending these colonies hence taxes to recover some of that cost. The sugar islands of the Caribbean were much more valuable and had a greater impact on the allocation.of resources locally than India.
However, the loss of the North American colonies did have one effect that went well beyond the Americas and that was the colonizing of Australia.
Up to the break, the American colonies had been the destination for convicts in Britain sentenced to deportation and made up a good portion of the population at the time of independence.
This forced Britain to look for another place to send her unwanted and convict settlements in Australia were developed to meet this need, planting the seeds of the modern democratic country that we all.know.
And the Australians can at least relish beating the Poms at cricket, a game played by both.
So the French and Indian War wasn't just an extension of the Seven Years War? Huh, "learn" something new everyday.
The most significant consequence of the American War of Independence was that, in 1976, Gibson released the Bicentennial Thunderbird bass guitar.
I specifically remember the phrase “The battle of Saratoga was the turning point of the war of independence” being drilled into my head in the 10th grade and having looked up that took place in 1777, makes a lot of sense now.
Great historical video, correcting many myths. I can fully understand (from an American perspective), that to have an annual celebration for your independence is important. We were taught very little about it when I went to school, not because we ultimately lost, but because (as you quite rightly say), it wasn’t important when compared to the rest of the empire.
The irony of it all was, British overseas colonies to this day are self governing anyway. Nobody knows why the colonials rebelled . Even the French Britains enemy at time were puzzled. Some say they the colonials wanted native Indian land, when King George expressly told them not to disrespect the native population. It’s their land after all. But they went ahead anyway and the rest is history.
It was all about the Ohio Territories. The taxes they ' rebeled ' against were paid in full according to the Treaty.
Indian land was a big input, the British had given guarantees to the native tribes regarding not expanding the colonies further into certain areas of land, some of the leading colonists wanted those lands, declare independence and the British deals were irrelevant.
Taxation and representation was a war cry to raise the rabble, the avereage working man colonist like his British equivalant had nothing to tax and had no representation anyway.
There was I believe, a British Policy to not allow any settlement West of The Appalachian Mountain Range. This was not popular with some.
Yes. Pretty much. All that talk of "freedom" was pure bs. The freedom to make money, maybe. America has ALWAYS been that way. The United States of America. Bringing you pure bs since 1783.
According to Fred Anderson in his book "Crucible of War" Geo Washington farmed tobacco. Unfortunately for him, it was of poor quality and fetched low prices on the London market. Tobacco was in demand for snuff in those days, and the London fops and dandies were very picky. Washington's product wasn't "up to snuff." So he switched to wheat. But I suppose, in the end, they didn't want to be tied down to the Brits as exclusive customers. With more buyers, they could get better prices. Hence independence. It was always about $$$$$$$$ and it still is in "God's Own Country."
Americans got rid of the monarchy, but they kept the aristocracy. In fact in a way America has an even worse class/ wealth gap.
My grandfather (born 147 years after the conflict) agreed with "no taxation without representation" but claimed "we should've just given them [the 13 colonies, presumably] two MPs!"
As far as most British are concerned, it was more of a skirmish...we had bigger fish to fry...
Yes a major war in southern India and trying to get the Spain to understand Gibraltar is British.
The War of Independence was the only war that we lost. We lost battles bit not wars.
@@lemdixon01 When the UK lost a war (and there was more than one), it was generally because the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Colonial Office and its military agents to rein in expenses. I wish countries around the world still followed such a practical arrangement.
As a Brit I always celebrate 4th of July as it was on this day in1862 that Lewis Carroll first told the story of 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' to Alice and her sisters on a boat trip up The Isis (River Thames) in Oxford 📖😇
At school I was very interested in history but was taught very little of the American war for independence. I have since worked with many Americans who sometimes have occasion to think they can rub our noses in the dirt with regard to the subject, I always remind them that of all the British derived nations around the globe America has turned out to be the most embarrassing. Thank you for the video, very engaging.
I was born in the 4th of July 1949. A few years ago I was working offshore, California. The native Americans were very friendly, but were outdone by the other Americans when they celebrated my birthday all along the coast with a massive firework display. Thank you from the UK! 😂
I find that Italians celebrate my birthday each year. They've even named streets in honour of the date.
My mother sadly died at only 52. However, on what would have been her 65th birthday, New York set off two enormous 'roman candles' in the city centre. 11th Sept 2001. I was truely touched. Bless you all.
When I was a kid, I remember thinking Americans are just really obsessed with he film Independence Day, and had no idea it was a real national holiday... Thats how much it featured in our primary school education... Not at all!
I've had various American friends who were confused at why it (or the US civil war) were not taught in schools here and if it was because we were annoyed we lost?
Surprisingly, when you have literally thousands of years of your own island's history to cover in a syllabus, you tend not to bother talking about the histories of every other country too.
As I grew up and read more about it, the only thing I get annoyed by is the amount of American propaganda, much of which seems almost mythologised, about the US war of independence that is just accepted about the war.
At least get your facts straight about the beginning of your own country...
THe Boston tea party was the result of the British withdrawing the requirement for the East India company to ship to Britain first. The people who actually carried out the raid were smugglers of Dutch tea who now the British were undercutting. Something else many Americans ignore is that all the signers of the Declaration of Independence were land speculators who made money getting Indian land and selling it to settlers, George Washington was possibly the largest speculator. The British in the Quebec Act limited that land thses speculaors could steal from the Indians. They also ignore the fact that Britain was fighting a world war which countries whose combined population outnumbered the British about 3 or 4 to 1.
The American attitude is just another example of American self-importance.
Yep. Like the "World Series" in baseball, a sport only played in north America and by some weird Japanese. It's derived from the girls' (in England) game of Rounders.
Just a little fun.
The British simply didn't grasp that they weren't just losing a strip of small colonies along the coast, they were losing a continent. Americans/colonists understood this. Prior to the revolution the colonists were already making inroads across the Appalachians and the great watershed of the Ohio River and Great Lakes, After independence Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark all the way to the Pacific because the French, like the British didn't grasp what they sold in the Louisiana Purchase. Prior to and then concurrent with that we were already taking the Spanish lands in the south. The British were looking at the Atlantic coast while the colonists (and then Americans) were already looking west.
Another great video, Kaylin. I learned a lot. 🙂
Yes, modern Brits do not have angst about American independence.
It happened almost 250 years ago, so the event itself is just a historical fact, like the Norman conquest of 1066.
British people vs British, French and Spanish people. Mainly.
America didn't gain independence from anyone, as America wasn't a country.
It became a nation. A group of states.
And England was nothing more than a group of Anglo-Saxon polities when it was formed.
Dont forget the Dutch..
@@peterstubbs5934 And Germans from Myore and some native tribes!!
When I was at school in the UK in the 80’s we did cover the US War of Independence for a few short weeks. The Battle of Lexington and Concord sticks in my memory. I am a big fan of the US and its history. Although much shorter than British history, it is still fascinating. I particularly like the Civil War. My daughter is studying History at University and this is also one of her favourite periods.
1860’s she’s studying?
@@TheIceman567Yes, it’s perhaps her favourite subject, she loves that period, General Lee, Grant, Sherman, Lincoln, Gettysburg….
@ yeah, me too I’ve lived in the UK I love following the history of the 2nd English civil war myself. But love history or anytime I try to read as much as I can.
Later of course the British did come back to the US, as part of the 1812 to 1814 war. The British Navy sailed up the Potomac river and sacked Washington DC, burning down most of the City including the Capitol building, the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress what became the White House. For some reason, the Americans think that they won this later war! The scorched building, now known as the White House, had to be painted white to cover up the scars of the fire and it's for this reason that its new coat of white paint gave it its name
If the US had stayed loyal then they would have gained independence later, just as Canada did
Just think it would have been likely that the whole of North America would have been in a single union with US and Canada combined, with free health care and no gun crime 😊
A British take on American Independence : "I'm so glad Sam has grown up & found a place of his own. He was becoming such an unruly son." 😀👍 🇬🇧 🇺🇸
Are you British?
As a historian … perhaps google the Somerset v Stewart case four years before the Independence vote in Philadelphia. Somerset v Stewart held that slavery was unsupported by English law, not something that went down well in Virginia. Another thing that didn’t go down so well in Virginia was the Dunmore Proclamation which offered freedom to American slaves if they served in the British army. Many thousands did, including Harry Washington. Ralph Henry responded to his masters invocation of give me liberty or death by walking off his plantation and joining the British army. He met a former slave in Philadelphia and they had a child, she was described as born free behind British lines. The point of all this is to say Americans are fed what French writer Suzanne Citron calls Le Mythe National. These myths build national identity and cohesion but are usually bad or partial history. I remember walking through Trafalgar Square and some American friends not knowing who Nelson was, I surprised them by responding that most Britons don’t know or care who Jefferson was. I should add I say all this as someone raised near a village in England that does care about the revolutionary war, Warton in Lancashire. On Independence Day they fly the Stars and Stripes from the parish church. Warton was the home of the Washington family. You should definitely do a video from there on the Fourth of July.
i did google immediately...as if it was related to me😉
@ recommend Simon Schama’s Rough Crossings… Somerset vStewart was a landmark case known very well to the colonists
To be honest, the more important war ( again virtually forgotten in the UK but not Canada ) is the war of 1812. The defeat ( and it was a defeat despite New Orleans and a few naval victories) of the US in that war guaranteed Canadian independence which has continued so far to this day. So far ....
At least Americans did not immediately scramble for British passports. It is one of the ironies of countries that gained independence from Britain that none of the citizens want to live in their own country anymore 🤔
What is also missing are the 500,000 Americans, the so-called Loyalists, who left the new nation to settle down in Ontario (Haut Canada) to avoid becoming Americans, since Canada was still a British ruled land at that time. Trump should read a little bit of history when it comes to Canada. It was populated by the French and by people _who didn't want to be Americans._
Instead of Canada becoming the "51st State" of the U.S. , the U.S. should become the 11th Province of Canada ! 😆