German reacts to The American Revolution Part 1- Oversimplified
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ค. 2024
- German reacts to The American Revolution Part 1- Oversimplified
I do America Reaction, some call it Reaction US, Reaction USA. I love to get to know the USA, My videos arent British Reaction or Brit reacts videos. I am also very interested in the usa military reaction as well as us military reaction. I have a passion for us sports reaction, like nfl reaction or nba reaction. I am not brit reacts to america. I do European reacts videos. I also do reaction to america and reaction to us and reaction to usa videos. In this video we cover
Social Media
✬ Instagram: / chrisb.yt
✬ Discord: / discord
✬ Twitch: / chrisbreacts
Original Video:
0:00 Intro
1:09 Reaction
20:30 My Opinion
#usa #reaction
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.77[2/2] "รับทราบ" แก๊งเพื่อนรัก 10 ปี ที่ไปไหนก็มีตำนาน!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ifc0ofD51B0/mqdefault.jpg)
![ความรักไม่ได้น่ากลัวขนาดนั้น (TRUST ME) - LYKN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9np-lAtCRpQ/mqdefault.jpg)
An American beer company named themselves after patriot Samuel Adams, thus the future alcoholic beverage line.
That line always makes me laugh!
My wife's BFF is married to a German national, and Sam Adams is his favorite mass-market American beer. He prefers micro-brews, but it he's going to get beer at a supermarket on the way home, it will be Sam Adams.
I think Sam Adams was a brewer at the time. He was also a massive radical and cousin of future president, John Adams.
and Ethan Allen became a traditional American furniture brand.
@@tommc4916 Sam Adams is certainly bigger then a micro brewery, but I would not call them mass-market either.
Musket ball = bullet. The King George statue was literally used against him.
Yup. The old muzzle loaded muskets fired a spherical round ball. Later, rifles fired the oval shaped bullets we know today.
Actually, the King George statue was melted down for cannonballs, not musket balls.
Useless trivia…it’s why individual bullets are still called rounds.
The physical signs of this act of rebellion are still visible today at New York's Bowling Green Park: the fence posts around the statue were topped with finials prior to July 9, 1776, the day the statue was torn down. The fence is still there. So are the marks on the tops of the posts where the finials were sawn off and melted into musket balls, along with King George's statue.
@@seancatherall31I recently saw a TikTok explaining this and it has got to be one of the coolest things I’ve learned in while 🙌🏼
The Dutch were the ones who actually settled New York. New York City was originally the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam.
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam!
Albany NY is the oldest charted city in the US with the original Dutch charter from 1686 still in affect.
And the colony was New Netherlands. Really should have stayed different names so people wouldn't confuse the state and city.
In Washington Irving's History of New Amsterdam he says there were no problems for 150 years... then they formed a government and the troubles started.
Much of New Jersey was also colonized by the Dutch. Van Syckle's tavern is right down the road from me and was built a few decades before the Revolution. I'd bet good money that the Van Syckle family has been here since about 1600. Dutch harvesting of oysters around Jersey City absolutely destroyed the ecosystem as they were unwilling to abide by the limits that the Lenape had used for centuries in regard to annual harvesting.
Yes. The right to bear arms is exactly to defend ourselves from tyranny. Not just self defense and hunting. We are citizens, not subjects.
It literally says we have the right to bear arms in order to form a militia.
exactly. the right to bear arms is not only to defend ourselves, but to prevent tyranny from the government
@@marcbennett9232Hört sich gut an. Ist reiner Quatsch.
@@torstenheling3830 Indeed. We live in a rather different world now than we did during the Enlightenment.
That's nowadays, but originally, it was so settlers could defend them selfs from native Americans. The irony is that it was the British strategy to save money on defense
🎼 “even Old New York was once New Amsterdam” 🎶
🎵Why they changed it, I can't say. People just liked it better that way.🎶
@@sakisaotome6753Istanbul, not Constantinople, now it's Istanbul not Constantinople, why did Constantinople get the works, that's nobody's business but the Turks.
TMBG :)
ISSSSSSSSSTAAAAAAANBULLLLLLLL!
To answer a few of your questions, The part in the south that is now Florida, at the time of the Revolution was Spanish owned. The northern part, now the state of Maine, was a part of Massachusetts until 1820, when it became the state of Maine.
Because of the tax on tea, Americans started drinking coffee, which is why more people here drink coffee than hot tea.
New York was first settled by the Dutch and Delaware was first settled by the swedes.
Those colonists weren't completely untrained. Every colony had militias. They were actually created to fight Native Americans. In some cities, towns, and villages it was required for every adult male to own a gun. They had very little training, essentially, show up with your gun, fire, and run or reload.
Since you are German, let me tell you about the most important German that was on our side. His name was Baron Von Steuben. He claimed to be a Baron, but history has since found that he wasn't. He was sent by Benjamin Franklin to assist Washington in training our army. He brought his French interpreter with him. He was a drill instructor. He would bark out orders or cuss men out in German. His interpreter would say it, cuss words and all, in French. Then the Marquis de Lafayette, who was French and Washington's aide, would repeat it in English, cuss words and all. Von Steuben wrote a drill manual for the USA that is still used today, with stuff added to modernize it
We get to see the stick figure version of him in part II. (Oh no! Spoilers!)
Slight errata regarding Florida; at the time or the revolution it was British controlled and had been since the seven years war (aka French and Indian war). Britain ceded it back to Spain in the peace treaty following the revolutionary war. It was later acquired by the United States from Spain in 1819.
They didn't need formal training, they were all hunters and were excellent shots.
The main reason we drink tea is due to the fact that it has more caffeine than tea. The Boston Tea party wasn’t exactly common knowledge to people for most of American history and if it was, I doubt most people would have been influenced by it.
@@Perfectly_Cromulent351 no, it was the price increase on tea that caused people to drink coffee, they knew nothing about caffeine. And if you don't think most people knew about tea boycotts, then why does the Museum of the Revolution, of which I was a volunteer until health prevented it, have newspapers from ALL the colonies telling people to drink coffee?. No one knew what caffeine was yet
the father of the US army that trained those men was Fridrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin Von Steuben
"Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim" vibes
yep what most Germans and most Americans don't know, is Von Steuben, a German, turned the militia of the USA into a fighting force that could go toe to toe with the British Army. What most American's also don't know is the French provided not just material aid but direct military assistance (like they are doing in Ukraine today) to the colonies. The French Navy helped out tremendously.
@@MrSGL21 his book on how to train troops is still used by the US military today, it's not the ONLY thing, but it's contents are included
@@MrSGL21 ...when they finally got here ;)
Correct, but not yet at this point in history. That all comes next in part 2.
It is important to remember that at the outbreak of the war they were not fighting for independence. Many of the colonists were 5+ generations in the colonies, but they still considered themselves British. They were fighting to be treated as full English citizens, with a voice in how they were governed. They were willing to lay down their lives for liberty, but were not seeking independence (yet). The taxes were offensive to them not for how high they were (they were not that high), but because English common law guaranteed a person being taxed the right to help decide how they were taxed. But as a colonist they didn't have representation in parliament.
Representation was a difficult matter. With the American population approaching 50% of that of England and growing fast adding the American colonists representatives directly to parliament would be a major shake-up in the balance of power. And to make matters worse, if land ownership was used in any formula for calculating representation the massive amount of land in the American colonies could turn them all into voters. Intelligent people foresaw an England where the population at home would become a minority dominated by British citizens living outside of the homeland. There were attempts at compromise, but they were poorly designed and failed.
Another thing to understand is that each colony was effectively a corporation from the English point of view. They often treated each separately and the colonists themselves had little loyalty collectively. When dealing with the post-7 Years War issues Franklin advocated that the colonies needed to negotiate collectively. Many of the images used during the war were based not on rebellion, but on failed attempts at collective bargaining, like the chopped up snake "Join or Die" isn't about joining the army.
George Washington was an officer in the colonial army, not the redcoats. After the 7 years war (We call it the French and Indian War in the U.S.) Washington wanted a commission in the royal army, but was rejected... again, 2nd class citizen. It is very important to understand that George Washington did not join the continental army to fight for independence. He and most others felt that they were fighting for their rights as English citizens when the conflict started. Kill each other for a few months and the idea of independence became more popular - but it never became extremely popular. Most people just wanted the fighting to stop regardless of outcome.
I do living history presentations and sometimes portray a loyalist. It is surprising to Americans today to learn that the idea of independence wasn't popular at first - they're fooled by the modern media into thinking we hated England. We didn't - we hated parliament - and who doesn't at any point in history?
This was a civil war, with families being very split on the issues. Brothers fought brothers, literally at times.
To further build on this, the solution the colonists wanted, was for the colonial legislatures to be empowered to represent the colonies on behalf of the crown. If Parliament was the legislative body for the home, the colonial legislature would be the legislative body for the colonies. But as you pointed out, the problem is parliament. This sort of thing was viewed as an attack on Parliament's power, and parliament didn't want to lose power.
It's worth noting that King George, by British standards was viewed relatively favorable. One of his accomplishments is that he never vetoed an act of parliament in his reign. The American revolution, as a conflict between parliament and the colonies, George would not get involved. King George even later remarked to American painter Benjamin West, that if Washington was going back to his farm after the war, that he must be the greatest man in the world.
What I find interesting, is that in about 80 years after the American Revolution, the British passed a major reform to how their colonies were governed with the colonial laws Validity act of 1865. Which effectively was what the American revolutionaries wanted in their time.
Excellent analysis. I believe that public opinion in the colonies was split 3 ways--1/3 Patriot, 1/3 Loyalist, 1/3 non-aligned--with each colony providing troops for both sides. We must also remember that there were powerful voices in Parliament who opposed the war and wanted some kind of accommodation, but it was the King's ministers who wanted to prosecute the War. Thus, it was the Ministers (not the King, not England and not even Parliament) who were despised.
@Paulschirf9259
"Intelligent people foresaw an England where the population at home would become aminority dominated by British citizens living outside of the homeland."
I've never seen this mentioned before nor had I ever considered it. It makes a lot of sense. Very interesting! Thanks for sharing.
Very good research and analysis.
Quick answer to one of your questions: No England was not protecting us. They were protecting their financial interests. They saw the colonies as theirs.
And they obviously expanded their empire.
Well to be fair, the colonies WERE theirs. And the colonists even considered themselves British until part way through the war. At the start the American colonists just wanted to make the British respect their rights as subjects of the British Crown, which the colonists felt were being ignored. It wasn't until after the fighting had broken out and the British refused peace that independence was seriously considered.
Of course it was theirs, the colonists themselves were British.
"no they weren't protecting *us* , they were protecting their interests". So yea..they were protecting you lol.
@@mitchelltyler5972 If the colonies weren't valuable, they wouldn't protect them. They didn't care about the colonists as people. They cared about them as bags of money. There's a difference.
Chris, you're partially correct. Fighting for 8 years against the British convinced most people that no government was to be entirely trusted, and the only way to insure freedom was to allow everyone to defend themselves by force of arms. Armed citizens were known as the militia. Hence, the Second Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
And thus, we have a saying: "When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have freedom." Americans may support our government. But the people in the government are our EMPLOYEES, not our rulers. And one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to make sure that everyone REMEMBERS that.
Unfortunately, we haven't been able to be as well armed as the Government since 1934. The National Firearms act outlawed private ownership of automatic firearms. And has been amended to include: Explosive weapons, and rocket propelled weapons. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, commonly known as the ATF, has been given a lot of power without any input from the people.
@@HemlockRidge That's true. My only comfort is that that's still far better than most countries. You can only do the best you can.
@HemlockRidge and all those laws and bureaus are utterly unconstitutional
@@docsavage8640 I mostly agree. Cafeteria Constitutionals slap on the blinders and run rampant over it. They've been getting away with it for decades.
BRAVO! Well said brother!
Both the Prussian Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben (on the side of the colonies), and mercenaries from Hesse-Kassel (on the side of Great Britain) fought in the American Revolution. Von Steuben was instrumental in teaching the Colonial Army how to train soldiers.
I have a possibly wrong memory that some of those soldiers stayed in the US rather than return?
@@tlockerk I'm sure some of them did.
@@tlockerkYou’re correct. I saw different numbers for how many settled in the US and Canada at the war’s end, but it seems to have been a few thousand at least.
Von Steuben is one of my favorite characters of the war. Heck... I even named my cat (Mr. Von Steuben) after him. I call him, Stewie for short 😁
I had German ancestors who owned a farm in Western NJ who served in the NJ forces against Britain during the Revolution (they had also served in the French & Indian War)
A lesser known but critical contribution by German immigrants during the Revolution was the Pennsylvania Long Rifle. German gunsmiths introduced rifling to the settlers in Appalachia. This was a massive improvement over the smooth bore muskets used by the English.
the effective range of a musket was about 50 yards or 45 meters. The rifle could hit a man sized target out to about 250 yards or about 225 meters.
@@MrSGL21 The marksmanship skill of 17 year old kids from Appalachia has been one of our nation’s best secret weapon since the very beginning.
Yeah nothing caused more havoc during revolution then these proto-snipers and the disregard of honorable combat as they took out The British chain of command.
@@Deadxman616 To be fair the brits did the same thing to us. They also had rifles believe it or not.
How can you force somebody to import something?
By controlling all of the boats. The English had the trading companies. They had a trade plan where they extracted all the raw resources from their colonies, shipped them back to England for processing, and then sent them out again. This made some products ridiculously expensive in the US colonies. And what was more infuriating was that the colonies know that some of these places like the islands with the sugar, we really nearby and we could just go over there and get sugar direct, but England wouldn't allow it. This is why, pre-Revolution, the US had a disproportionate amount of smugglers. Because if Britain wasn't going to allow us to have sugar and other raw goods, we were going to go out and get it ourselves.
I mean, I suppose we could have just not had sugar and other goods. But we really wanted them, and England was being really stupid about making its shipping lines inefficient in an effort to take all of the wealth of the colonies for itself, even from people who wanted to be loyal citizens. We just refused to accept that the cotton needed to be shipped from South Carolina to England to be made into cloth to be sold in New York when New York had plenty of factories of its own for making cloth and it was less risky, and also who wants to pay for shipping twice?
Short answer - guns and the willingness to use them to enforce whatever you want. Crazy concept. The rest is just logistics of where and who to make those facts known and everything falls into place sans occasional rebellion and making examples in response.
Note, this solution only scales by the factor of superior force you have, dwindling to nothing quicky when you no longer have enough superiority to be willing to stress test your margin of error in your assessment and just hope no one stress tests it out for you. Like, a rebellion.
All correct. However, even if you control the boats, you can't _make_ someone buy sugar.
However, sugar was an enormous business. Colonial Americans (and all of Europe) had enormous sweet tooths (teeth?). IIRC, sugar production was the biggest industry in the Americas. Not North America, particularly, but the Caribbean and Brazil.
Not so fun fact: most of the slaves brought from Africa were sent to sugar plantations, where they died in droves. It was horrible.
Oyster shells are not harder than rocks... but they are really sharp.
Not only sharp but readily available near port city’s. They used to pack them into the soil to help slow down erosion and stabilize the ground from moving.
Two fun facts.
1: The reason coffee is so popular in America is because of the British taxing tea. The colonists turned to drinking coffee in protest.
2: Paul Revere never said, "The British are coming." He said, "The regulars are coming" since the colonists were still British subjects.
lol true story
Knox being able to transport heavy artillery cross country, with essentially no roads, won the siege of Boston. Normally, the cannon would have been sent by boat down the Hudson, then by ship to Boston, but the British controlled all the water routes.
Yes, Knox, Nathaniel Green, and others were key in logistics of spreading men and supplies supporting the war efforts.
The exact wording of the second amendment; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It's a little confusing because of the old-time talk, but it boils down to 'people should be able to defend themselves and their property from those who would want to unlawfully take them/it by force.'
There was also an idea floating around at the time where the national army would be disbanded and the population was expected to defend themselves, and state-sponsored militias would be formed in times of crisis. That whole idea fell apart during the War of 1812 and the national army was reinstated, but the prospect of citizens being able to defend themselves and their property remains a big part of American culture to this day.
What a lot of Europeans forget is that the United States is a young country and a very big country. In Germany, during the American Revoultion, you could probably ride your horse out of your village and into another in an hour of so. In America, if you leave your home, it could days, weeks, even months before you reach another settlement. So the right to bear arms was needed so people could protect themselves, be it from wild animals, criminals, and even the their own government.
Germany didn’t exist back then.
@@rw7668 They obviously meant the people who lived where Germany is now (in this case the Holy Roman Empire).
Yes, and No. Depends on where you lived during this time period. John Jay once said he could travel from Boston to Philadelphia via the light of his burning effigies during the time period where the Jay Treaty was first signed. This was true for some of the lesser settled areas, but the more settled coast was not like this, at all. This is more applicable to the western expansion period, than it was to the pre-independence colonial period.
Back then the government didn't have weapons too superior to what the citizens had.
Now? A full auto assault rifle is pretty much useless. Except for murdering school children.
@@tylerbarse2866even then it would be months between towns
"Samual Adams" name was also used to name a popular beer in the USA.
Made in Boston, where he lived...hence why it was named for him.
A musket ball is the projectile a musket fires. Its a long barrel, front loaded, unrifled, single shot firearm.
A musket ball is basically an old fashioned bullet. They were used in muskets, an old fashioned gun.
Oh yeah. Wall street New York, actually named because of a wall there.
There are a LOT of stories buried in the American Revolution. I’ve lived and worked in the Boston area and, for the last 16 years, I’ve commuted to work literally next door to the National Park site near where the Battle of Lexington was fought - where re-enactments are done every year.
Yes, Jefferson had slaves, but Oversimplified didn’t have time to point out that Jefferson also wanted to put an anti-slavery clause in the Declaration of Independence. He was forced to remove it because the southern colonies wouldn’t sign on with that clause still in it.
One reason that they made note of Benedict Arnold is because of what happened in their “Part 2” - after being passed over for promotions and recognition for his efforts, he decided to betray the Continental Army by trying to give the plans of the military installation at West Point to the British so they could best attack and capture it. In this country, even now over 200 years later, you could literally hear people call someone a “Benedict Arnold” instead of using the actual word “traitor”.
Washington was about to be run out of the Army for all of his defeats. There was a joke going around that, when the Crown’s forces would finally capture everyone, they would hang everyone ‘famous’ that they knew - but Washington would escape because the British military had only ever seen the back of his head. The Battle of Trenton would change all that. That’ll be in Part 2 as well.
There are a lot of things that can be categorized in the “if that didn’t happen, the United States lose” column. If they didn’t get the artillery to Dorchester Height in time.. If the fog didn’t roll in at Brooklyn Heights. If the Hessian mercenaries didn’t get drunk in Trenton on Christmas. If the French weren’t supplying the overwhelming share of gunpowder and other arms to the Continental Army. If Franklin hadn’t brokered a peace deal. If the French ships didn’t *finally* show up when they did…. And there are a lot more of those…
And there IS one fact that’s not too well known about the objections to all the taxes. The group we call “the Founding Fathers” are often referred to as ‘businessmen’. At times, it would be more accurate to call them “smugglers”. The taxes were levied on goods that were having their prices set artificially low and the smugglers basically couldn’t compete. That part doesn’t get a lot of recognition because it doesn’t fit the narrative of people sacrificing their livelihoods for the ideal of freedom and independence. But it WAS a contributing factor.
“Washington would escape because the British had only seen the back of his head.”
I actually LOL’d. I love that our sense of humor hasn’t changed from the very beginning of the country.
That green flag was a Regimental flag as we had no national flag at first.
Incidentally, the monarch ruling Britain at that time was George III, a descendant of the German House of Hanover.
Not merely a descendant of. He was simultaneously King of Great Britain and Elector of Hannover, the two realms being governed separately but with the same monarch. It was, naturally, easy to rent German troops from Hannover.
Yup. Second ammendment and the Militia acts were written just after that war. The Militia acts were later repealed, but they set the precedent. Now apply that to modern day tech where airborne troops exist....
The National Guards serve in every state and is used to bridge the American militia tradition and a standing army. The National Guards are in most (or all) states which fulfills 1) a regulated “militia” in each state and 2) can be federalized in times of crisis by the President (or is it the Executive Branch? I know they have been federalized in WWI & WWII).
Milita were part time civilian soldiers in essence required to have a gun that defended their homes and towns. They only occasionally trained. This idea goes back to Jamestown and Pilgrim settlements when there was no such thing as any English Army units in America. Americans defended themselves.
Yes, it was also an English tradition in the Medieval times, so it would make sense that the militia tradition would play a role in early settlement and American history because the colonists couldn't rely on England because of a huge ocean barrier.
As to your question about the colonies only being on the Atlantic coast (~9:21), the areas to the south and west did not have organized colonial governments, though the land was claimed by Britain. The colonies of the coastal areas had governments, and sufficiently large populations to build serious resentment of British rule. Samuel Adams was a brewer in addition to his political activities. His name is now used by a major brewery in Boston, MA.
Also, by British law, no settlements could be made past the Appalachian Mountains.
Those western areas had hardly any people of British or any other European descent living in them. The Appalachian Mountains run from Maine to northern Georgia and were a significant physical barrier to travel and settlement, though they didn't stop it entirely. Also, not surprisingly, the Native Americans who lived there didn't want more Europeans moving in. They had support from the French, who claimed the area in theory but didn't have many settlements there, and didn't want the British expanding into it. Then, because the Britsh government didn't want to provoke conflicts with them, it forbid any of its colonists to settle there. So those western areas were claimed by Britain but had no British population to speak of.
Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were on the committee to write a declaration of principles. Franklin and Adams quickly assigned Jefferson to be the writer. Jefferson hesitated but agreed to the task because Franklin and Adams were on many committees and Jefferson wasn't. Jefferson then wrote the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable..." Franklin interrupted. "Sacred and undeniable? SMACKS of the Pulpit! Smacks of the pulpit!" Jefferson said that he chose every word with precision and Franklin said: "These truths are self evident are they not? Fine. Self evident it is." So all humans have these words to be their own: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Looking forward to Part 2! Oversimplified, The USA Civil War is a great video also!
Hello, I'm glad you are interested in American history. I have a German great-grandmother who loved America and taught her 15 children to love America. Germans make great Americans. 👍
Defense against a tyrannical government but while politically incorrect it was true, most of the Native American tribes had a raiding culture with varying degrees of violence
doesn't matter that it was politically correct.. its just true. You could just omit that part about politically correct. Why? Because being politically correct is pointless, all it means is that one is trying to keel over like a dog submitting to our modern-day tyrants.
Yes the Native Tribes gave as good as they got until they were overwhelmed by sheer numbers of settlers and the force of the federal government. The romantic idea of the ‘noble savage’ is a myth.
That’s not to say they weren’t shafted by broken promises and treaties. They were. But it’s naive to think they lived in harmony with everyone and everything.
The 2nd part is the best part. You'll even get some German involvement. One was very important but only gets a brief mention. Maybe do a little digging into Friedrich Wilhelm August Heinrich Ferdinand von Steuben.
As an American I am happy to see that you are interested in our history. Truth be told we had help from a very famous German general trained by Frederick the great to win the war of independence against the British. His name was baron von Steuben I believe. He was such a good general with good tactics that America adopted his tactics all the way to 1812 and possibly after as he was very successful in battle. He is also a grandfather in the German community in America from my understanding.
There was a lot of British territory west and north of the original 13 colonies that first made up the United States. The first 13 colonies or states were Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia. Territory west of that was largely unsettled and was dangerous to travel into because the natives would often fight any of the British or colonists who traveled west. Britain pretty much forbid the colonists from traveling into the western territories for fear that they would be killed by the natives. I believe they also made a treaty with the natives promising that no one would settle west of the 13 colonies. The British did also have some settlements in Canada, but they were never considered to be a part of the US or the 13 colonies.
The founding fathers did look to George Washington to lead the rebellion because he had military experience. There was some speculation that he would be up to the task because he was still somewhat inexperienced compared to other British or former British Generals, but he is ultimately who they went with and it paid off in the end.
Samuel Adams was one of the founding fathers, but in more recent history, his name has become an American beer brand.
The right to bare arms was ultimately put into the bill of rights, so the country could better defend itself. It is what helped win the Revolutionary War against the British. The United States also did not have a standing army until.... after World War II? I could be wrong about that, but I don't think we had a dedicated budget and reserves of trained soldiers until WWII and after. Prior to that, the country had to rely on trained militias that the government could call on to fight wars if we were ever attacked. That meant that civilians needed to be able to supply their own weapons.
So glad to see you reacting to Oversimplified. Loved the video keep them coming.
A musket ball is the ammunition used for the preferred personal weapon of the time: the musket (basically a primitive rifle^). The colonists turned a statue of the King of England into "bullets" to shoot his soldiers with. The first of the five men shot by the British at the Boston Massacre was a Black man named Crispus Attucks. And yes, the 2nd Amendment was ratified (in part) as a "check" against an overreaching and tyrannical government (thus the phrase "2nd Amendment solutions"). Part of the reason why the colonists were able to defeat a well trained, professional army is because, although they were unfamiliar with military drill and tactics and lacked a formal chain of command, they were dedicated, knew the terrain, had the initiative and, crucially, they were armed. This has had a profound impact on America's relationship to guns.
^The musket is so simple and so iconic (and also so inaccurate, slow to fire, noisy and awkward to use) that modern ones aren't even regulated by our federal government as guns provided they're modeled exactly after designs created prior to about 1898. They can be shipped to a person's doorstep and purchased by people normally prohibited from owning guns (which, again, they're not legally). Different states might have stricter rules, of course.
I'd not heard that detail...how PERFECT. lol.
The 2nd Amendment part about “the regulated militia” was due to the success of the Revolutionary War. Before that, the early (English) settlers had set up local militias similar to what they had in England, partially due to the British Civil War and other reasons-but the colonists couldn't wholly rely on British support because they were across the ocean.
THAT FOG WAS A MIRACLE!!!! it was one of the British soldiers who obviously got nervous or anxious that fired first because it wasn’t any of the colonists. Leave it to a nervous British soldier .😂 That Fog in New York was a miracle, and for the longest time, and even today, some people who are Christians believe in divine intervention, and since there has never been any type of fog on that island at all, but just that once, at least, for the first couple hundred years that people inhabited this land, It was either a coincidence or divine intervention, because it saved those American troops and General Washington news, and said himself they couldn’t afford to lose anymore!! He made sure that they had fires going through the night so the British would think they were camping and sleeping because he knew that the British would come after them first thing in the morning after daylight and George Washington major every one of his troops had gotten across the river in a boat before he left!! That’s true leader ship, because any general colonel or commander that leads from the front and is the first one to hit the ground in the last one to leave is the type of leader that every unit needs!!! If it were not for that fog, all of those American militia would’ve been killed for sure!!
The minute men could fight, but they weren’t as well trained as the British military. The people in the USA are in the Americas. We’re always crazy having boxing and wrestling contest and these guys and families were in good shape because most of them were farmers and had hard jobs.. of course, they were going to be tough and strong compared to the spoiled British military. The British military had better weapons, but hand-to-hand combat. The Americans had them beaten.. The British were just trying to get the colony’s Own Arsenal weapons to try to disarm us. NOO!!!! not our weapons you don’t ! Here in the USA, we have animals that eat you and plus there were the Indians and guns were a means of hunting and protecting ourselves, and they still are because criminals running wild all over America because progressive district, attorneys and mirrors don’t ever charge these people with hideous crimes they commit, so we do need to defend ourselves, and even more now because we have more criminals and gangs from all over the world plus terrorists. Depending on where somebody attacks depends on what kind of fight that they’re gonna get because these people coming into the country pretty much know where they can get by with stuff and where they can’t. Republican states or the state that aren’t pure centralized government control believing we have too much big fat bureaucracy to pay for but doesn’t want at least 150 or so administrative agencies wants to let business business and not strangle everything by over controlling it like the Democrats socialist do, and this infrastructure bill that was passed a couple years ago- nothing has been done because the regulations are so horrific that they can’t do anything which is why I’m praying Trump gets reelected!!! Our weapons now are for self protection, and if anybody gets into our country, you damned right we’re going to protect our land.
Nobody uses weapons against our government and that’s bullshit except that some hoodlums do you shoot cops sometime and Truthfully, anybody that kills a government employee that works for the police with your local state or federal should get life in prison or the death penalty, because either which way they cost about the same amount of money. I’m more for life in prison, but it just depends on how full it gets in there.
There isn't much to say at this point, I'll comment after part 2! Great reaction so far my friend!
Musket ball..ammunition for a muzzle loading flintlock weapon.
The Dutch settled New York. Ir was Nieuw Amsterdam
8:55 only the colonies on the coast were populated. The Appalachian mountain range made it very difficult to traverse to those areas, so they were very sparsely, if at all populated. The main population centers were near or on the coast.
The real problem of "Rebels" vs the British Army was that the Minutemen's firearms were simple Fowling Pieces, trade muskets, and rifles. None of which would take a bayonet. The British combat strategy at this time was to march up in range of your musket actually hitting something, firing, and then an attack with bayonets. Not too many farmers will stand there trying to re-load their weapons while a line of gleaming bayonets is quickly approaching. No wonder they learned to hide behind trees and sniping.
Re: Washington
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: I'm not a Washington specialist, but from what I recall in college people noticed that Washington always behaved as if he would be a legendary and important man. He was very formal and reserved. But he also really did try to do what was best for people. One of the greatest things he ever did for us was step down after serving for two terms as president. He didn't get voted out. he could have kept going. He could have tried to begin a dynasty. And he didn't. He did believe in the who project of democracy and so held himself to very high standards.
But yeah he seemed to think he would live a life that would leave a mark on history and so tried to live a life that would be remembered and be an example to everyone. Which often came off as stuck up.
Great information!
It’s also interesting (and, perhaps, important to note that Washington was not a particularly good soldier, general, leader….but what he WAS was ambitious!
And there were Americans who WANTED Washington to declare himself a king.
Right to bear arms is the right to defend ourselves from foreign AND domestic corrupt governments
The British also employed German mercenaries. When the British lost, they left many of the Hessian troops behind rather than pay for them to be returned to Europe.
Colonel Washington had served in the British army in the French and indian wars earlier.
Oyster shells are very sharp. It's quite easy to lacerate yourself on them by accident just by handling them. I would not want to have a barrage of them thrown at me by an angry mob. (They also probably stank of rotting seafood by the time they were easily available to pick up and throw at soldiers!)
As for gun ownership back in colonial times, bear in mind that even by the 18th century, western Europe had already eliminated many of its large predators, or pushed them to the furthest reaches of settled land. Even leaving aside encounters with the native Americans, the colonies still had wolves, bears, and mountain lions to worry about. Large predators were far more numerous in close proximity to human settlement than they were in most of 18th century western Europe.
It's extremely unlikely that the Colonies would have been able to defeat the British without help from France, Spain and Holland. France is our oldest ally.
France didn't actually join until it was a near certainty that American would win. The Americans were on their own for a long time, and France was seeing which way the wind would blow.
@@Anon54387 Which, to be honest, is kind of the way most countries behave, even today. Nobody wans to support the losing side.
i like your videos. very pure and relaxing.
Yes the Dutch originally founded New York, though the ship was piloted by Henry Hudson, who was English. Hudson was working for the Dutch East India company, all 26 families on his ship were from Holland, and were sailing under a Dutch flag. Many locations and streets in New York (not the name New York obviously ) are Dutch names.
Sam Adams is a brand of beer
Sam Adams was a second cousin of John Adams. He was also one of the Founding Fathers and a Continental Congress member. After the war he served in the Massachusetts senate then eventually elected as governor.
By trade, he was made a partner in the family business by his father, running a malt house. They produced malt for brewing beer.
7:30 Oyster shells are hard as a rock and it has sharp edges that will cut you wide open if you took one to the face
Great personality & reactions, Chris. Always love your content & your personality.
great job man
TRUE TRUE
You should really check out Fat Electrician's video called, "Angry Old Veteran vs. 700 Redcoats - Samuel Whittemore". It goes along with what is shown in this video at 11:07 when the British Army is retreating from Concord and fleeing back to Boston. Samuel Whittemore was an angry old man that attacked the British army by himself. Whittemore was fearless and tough as nails.
As a Whitmore who rarely ever sees his name in media, þis really sent me for a loop. I’ll have to look into Samuel Whittemore.
@@claypigeon7063 If you watch Fat Electrician's video, he mentions what a huge family that Samuel Whittemore produced. He had a lot of children, and his children apparently also had lots of children. Who knows, you might be related to the guy, which would be pretty awesome.
I can't wait for part 2!
8:00 - Yes that is largely why. Remember, during the American Revolution the British regulars began by confiscating firearms. Not only were those arms the British were trying to confiscate the arms that were ultimately used by the rebelling forces during the war, but keep in mind that this area was not nearly as developed as it was today and those arms that were confiscated were often needed for hunting and defense from wild animals, or if you were even farther out you may need it to protect yourselves from bandits, hostile native americans, or colonists from other nations.
To add onto this, the framers of the US constitution did not believe in standing armies and believed that the national defense should largely be formed of independent militia that were not run by the government. The militia would need to provide their own weapons and equipment so you naturally need to ensure they can poses said arms. Also if you look at early laws for the defense of the country you'll see that the militia is considered to be organized regular groups, and the unorganized militia which is every adult male up to the age of 65. If there was an emergency then the idea was you would recruit from the militia and form army then disband it when the war was over.
Please continue reacting to Oversimplified videos: American Civil War, Cold War, etc.
Once you do the revolution and the war of 1812, you really should 'backktrack' a bit and do The Fat Electrician's video on the Barbary Pirates and formation of the USA Navy. Oh and TFE's "Get off my lawn!" too... all that time period.
It looks so different because that was only the 1st 13 states/colonies...37 states to go... (and, most of the biggest ones).
There IS NO US yet... there are the British Colonies in the Americas. BUT the other part of your Q. why were the others not pissed? They had not been under British 'rule' as long... (*and, maybe the French/Spanish were worse?) Dunno, but makes sense.
Musket ball was the "bullet" of that time.
Great reaction.
Oh my, I'm so glad to find your channel 🥰 you enjoying this video gave me goosebumps 💜
I had family on the side of the colonists, in the British regulars, AND some who were among the Hessians the British pressed into service. Kind of funny to think about looking back.
You are correct that royals married each other for political alliances and it lead to massive inbreeding. Royals suffered from genetic maladies, deformities, and mental illnesses. For ex. King George III was mad (I don't know specifically what plagued him), Prince Alexander of Russia (Tsar Nicholas II’s son & Victoria’s descendant) suffered from hemophilia, and King Charles V of Spain had a remarkably distinct chin (look it up, it is strange to look at), etc.
That “tea party” is why Americans drink coffee and have ever since. Lmao cancel culture was strong then too 😂
You've obviously never been to the south. Also, "cancel culture" isn't a real thing.
Iced sweet tea is a thing
Yes the fog. In many wars you can sometimes point to one tiny detail that if were different it could have changed the entire outcome of the war. Such as a storm, blizzard, or even a spy getting caught. Sometimes the most insignificant thing, getting stung by a bee, stopping to rest, can cause the most dramatic shift in an outcome. The fog is considered one of these in American history.
You bring up some really good points. I would love to see another Oversimplified, but not as simple, more details. :)
Re: Could you please stop?
This is actually pretty close to the truth.
The Americans at the Continental Congress, or at least a majority of them, felt that they were extremely loyal to the crown. They didn't want to fight. They sent letters asking for the king begging him to intercede with parliament and sort things out.
As is often the case with far-flung colonies, or even the provinces of large Empires, the colonists had a very strong "good Emperor" belief about the King. They really, really wanted to believe that anything about the government they didn't like was all the work of the Evil Parliament, while "if only the King knew!" he would be on their side. It's a very common social delusion, and it took a while for people to accept that King George was not actually their friend.
@elkins4406 Well, it's not always a delusion so much as a polite way to demand change without directly insulting your liege's judgment. Blaming the ministers for "misleading" the king was done to push an agenda while allowing the king to save face if he acceded to their demands. People usually knew it wasn't true and that the monarch was more involved than they claimed, but you can't outright say you're against the rightful monarch.
@@TheAngryXenite Wow, that is an excellent point, and one that I had honestly never considered. It seems so obvious once you point it out. Thanks!
To answer the question of oyster shells, at the time oysters were a really common food for the lower class, they were like the cheap microwave dinners of the 1700's Boston. You could walk down a street and find piles of discarded shells literally everywhere. In addition to being plentiful ammunition for throwing, chipped or broken shells could be quite sharp. And finally, rotting oysters smell terrible, a final insult to injury when one is getting pelted by them.
A musket ball is basically a a metal ball fired from a musket. So essentially, when they melted down the statue, they turned it into ammunition used to kill and or injured British troops.
Yes. The right to protect oneself from the government is directly a result of us never wanting to be oppressed like the British did. The 3rd amendment is also a direct result as British troops would seize colonial homes and use them as barracks housing.
Commonly misconstrued. 2A is a direct result of not wanting the president to have control of a standing military in case they turned tyrant. So the people were allowed to own arms so they could be called up to service if needed. The first clause of 2A says that the right exists because a well regulated militia is necessary to defend the nation. There right in 2A is the purpose it exists. It came with the requirement to participate in basic training so if called up everyone had the same basic military competency as well. Madison and Hamilton both spoke about this in the Federalist Papers as well as it being discussed during the 1787 Constitutional Convention (see Madison's notes on debates).
Yes the right to bear arms comes from this. American milita already were required to own a gun. They fought hand in hand with the British to kick the French out.
🤦♂
Yes. It's true. The USA is the first country on Earth not to be a dictatorship. Samuel Adams is a high quality beer company now founded by a crazy Jew who spends WAY too much on the finest ingredients.
Just ran across your channel today for the first time. I think this is the 5th one I have watched. I very much enjoy what you are doing. I love the questions you ask. To me as a US citizen some are funny, but i know you are sincere in asking. I would answer them for you now, but others already have. I have subscribed and look forward to watching more of your videos.
You and your shows are enjoyable. 😊
Funny story...They say King George's first language was German. The British Royals have a lot of German blood in it. They even had to change their name during WW2 to make their family name sound less German.
WWI, not WWII.
@@tomhalla426 cool I knew it was one or the other
His first language was English
@@robertphelps1574 from what they are saying that he could barely speak it, but yeah believe that if you want.
Not many know this, but Jefferson got his 100 slaves when he married Martha Skelton as a dowry. John Wayles was Sally Hemming's and Martha's father. So Sally naturally took care of the house for Martha, her half sister. When Martha died, Thomas Jefferson and Sally grieved together for their loss. Thomas invited, his slave, Sally, to Paris, where she was free, to care for his diplomatic home, where he started the French Revolution, and they fell in love, but couldn't be married because of mixed race.
Thomas Jefferson most definitely did NOT start the French Revolution. Hold onto something solid so you don't fall down in shock when you read this ... The French Revolution was started by the French.
@@user-mg5mv2tn8q So you're saying the Declaration of Independence wasn't read, nor started any revolutions that came after it.
@@user-mg5mv2tn8q yeah good point... but greg is talking about how the american revolution had a HUGE direct impact/inspiration for the french revolution...so yeah--tom jeff
He “fell in love” with Sally Hemings? Or, he used his power as a slave owner to use his wife’s half-sister, whom neither he nor his wife freed, as his concubine? It’s not necessary to make up a glowing version of his life to recognize his other achievements.
@@gregchambers6100 People are influenced by their influences. Does that make the influences responsible for what those people did? You might as well say the American Revolution was started by the ancient Greek political philosophers and Guy Fawkes.
I'm from Boston and it was so cool to see you do a reaction on the Revolution! You must come visit sometime, you would be so welcome here and it's an easy flight from Germany! We have amazing culture, history, global food, sports, nature, and without the HUGE city feel of NYC (though it's definitely worth visiting there too). Love your channel, keep the videos coming!
EXCELLENT points!!! 👍👍👍
Just a silly fact: In Elementary School (kindergarten through 6th grade. Approximately 5 years old through 12 years old).
We learned a little rhyme to remember when Christopher Columbus discovered America.
" In 1492 Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue" 😊
Oversimplified is an amazing cc!
Closed captions?
@@mazdaman2315 content creator sorry 😖
Another German (Prussian) who played a big role in American history was Baron von Steaben. He trained American soldiers during the U.S. revolution. He brought order and discipline to a to a very unorganized army. He even put these lessons into a book that was used throughout the American army.
Hey chris ich LIEBE deine videos, fände es super cool wenn du mehr so militär reactions machen könntest z.b " desert storm the air war day 1" der erste golfkrieg ist für mich der Interessante krieg aller zeiten, die Technik und Strategien die eingesetzt wurden sind unglaublich, würde auch viele views kriegen;)
Unfortunately the story of the star spangled banner that you reacted to wasn't true. The story told in that video is completely false. The flag wasn't held up by dead bodies, only 4 Americans died in the battle, and there are many MANY other things in the video that are not true. I suggest looking for a video of the real story behind the star spangled banner and react to it.
No it’s mostly true there are a couple of inaccuracies but overall it’s mostly correct
@@mazdaman2315 no it's not mostly true and there aren't just a few inaccuracies. 99% of what is said in the video is completely false. Don't believe me? Go look it up for yourself because I'm tired of listing all the inaccuracies in that dumb video. I find that video deeply offensive because it makes a mockery of our history and as an extremely patriotic American, I can not stand for a video that flat out lies as that one does.
I can't even...*anything* with that video. It's a mess of outright falsities and nonsense, a prime example of "Alternative Facts," and I hate that every US-interested reactor seems to come across it sooner or later. The real story is a perfectly good one. Why people persist in distributing and lauding that bundle of lies is beyond me.
@@elkins4406 I'm right there with you, I can't stand seeing people react to that dumb video. The guy who made it was torn to shreds by historians when he released it.
First! And yeah, Oversimplied is a great channel. He’s got a lot of good stuff
Something that doesn't get mentioned in this video is that, in the wake of the Boston Massacre, the British soldiers were put on trial in Boston for murder. They were defended by that young lawyer by the name of John Adams, who did so not because he believed that the soldiers behaved correctly (he absolutely did not), but because he believed it was not sufficient for the government to state that an unlawful act had taken place, but that the government further had to prove that the act, in addition to being unlawful, was also unjustified. His defense was successful, and the soldiers were acquitted in light of the circumstances they were under, as the jury felt that in the same circumstances, they would likely have behaved the same way.
John Adams would go on to assist Thomas Jefferson with the writing of the Declaration of Independence, which he was also one of the first to sign, served an important role in organization during the War for Independence, was instrumental in the creation of the Constitution, and would serve as the second President of the United States.
I am descended from 2 Revolutionary War soldiers.
Lieutenant Daniel Kirtland, called with the first calling of the troops at Old Saybrook, Connecticut. He was among the Colonial Forces who chased the British back to Boston after the Battles of Lexington & Concord. He then participated in the Siege of Boston. He served in Captain John Ely's Company.
John Haroon (can't remember if that is the correct first name) from Vermont who marched to Boston meeting other forces there also participating in the Siege of Boston.
When you delve into the service of the Revolutionary War soldiers, you discover they only served a few weeks or months at a time, and changed companies every time they reenlisted. Haroon was I think in 5 different companies the 5 times he enlisted for a few weeks or months. Far different from today or even in the Civil War.
Later, by the time after the Brooklyn Heights Standoff, enlistments in the Continental army, were for 1 year.
The idea that untrained citizen soldiers defeated one of the best professional armies in the world is part of our American national mythology, but it's at best an exaggeration. Many thousands of these "minutemen" were captured in the early battles. Far more died in captivity in wretched conditions aboard "prison ships" than in combat. Only later in the war, after receiving financial and military assistance from Europe, was the professional American Continental Army able to match the British on the battlefield. One European who provided military training (mentioned in the second video) was the Baron Friedrich Wilhelm August Heinrich Ferdinand von Steuben of Prussia.
That was a Dutch flag. They founded New Amsterdam, now New York City. There are still towns and rivers with Dutch names in the state of New York. Some of the earliest wealthy families were Dutch, such as that of the two Presidents named Roosevelt.
The relationship between the "mother country" Great Britain and the American colonies was called "mercantilism." It was essentially a giant business enterprise in which the colonies supplied the raw materials and Great Britain the manufactured goods. The colonies could trade only with Great Britain, so British companies made large profits from their monopolies. Americans said the British government should tax these companies, claiming they were in effect paying for their defense by being forced to overpay for British goods. Besides, the colonies had a strong legal argument that according to their royal charters, Parliament did not have the authority to tax the colonists.
In colonial America, as well as the United States in the 1800s, local militias were necessary because the country was so large and the few soldiers in the national army might be too far away. When the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, some Americans worried that the new national government would prohibit local militias so that it would be more powerful. For most of American history, the consensus opinion was that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure the local militias could keep their weapons. Now, some Americans and the Supreme Court, who are the only people whose opinion matters, believe the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. The wording of the Second Amendment allows an argument to be made for both opinions.
Samuel Adams is an American beer company. Starting in the 1980s, they and other "microbreweries" started producing traditional European beers and ales that were heavier and had more flavor than lighter American beers. Samuel Adams has had very effective marketing. They bragged that their first beer, called "Boston Lager," was the only American beer that would be allowed to be sold under the "Reinheitsgebot," the Bavarian "purity order" for beer that was adopted in 1516.
At that time, the ammunition for a smoothbore musket was a spherical ball propelled by black powder. These weapons were inaccurate beyond 50-100 meters, which is why the soldiers stood so close to the enemy. When the U.S. Civil War was fought in the 1860s, muskets were rifled and fired a conical bullet called a Minié ball. These rifled muskets were accurate from a distance of hundreds of meters. But the generals still had their soldiers march close to the enemy, allowing both sides to inflict very heavy casualties (during the Battle of Gettysburg, one unit of more than 200 soldiers had 80% of their men killed or wounded in only a few minutes).
A lot of people are going to get this a little wrong. The right to bears arms is a little more complicated than to defend ourselves from tyranny. As colonies, men were by British law, required to own at least a certain type of weapon amd amount of ammo for civil defense. This channel gets the British march on Concord to get the rebel caches of weapons wrong. They were coming to secure their OWN caches for their citizen guards from falling into rebel hands. This is where the confrontation happened and the rebels ended up getting the caches. After independence the colonies actually did not form a country. They formed a loose confederation of independent nations. Each had its own currency, military, etc. And they came close to full on conflict a couple times. The Constitution did not contain a national military (disbanded post revolution) because the Founders feared a standing army being used by a tyrant. So they provided the 2nd amendment with the intent that citizens could be called up to FORM a national army or state army as needed. There are some frequently overlooked words in the 2nd A. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the State..." If you read the debates and public speeches from them at the time the idea was that there would be a federal minimum of training so that when called up everyone would have the same knowledge of formations, military procedure, etc. Well regulated meant this. Owning weapons came with the requirement of a basic military training and service if called upon. It was NOT for citizens to protect themselves from tyranny. At least not in the direct sense many think it was. It prevented a military being under the direct control of Congress or the President.
"What's a musket ball?"
It's a ball you shoot out of a musket. They turned a statue of the king into thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Oh, btw there are quite a few inaccuracies here in this video. If you would like a more serious review of the American Revolution that is still approachable I'd recommend The History Channel's 2006 miniseries "The Revolution". It's in 13 parts but it covers the subject much better and with more detail.
Something people don’t realize was when the constitution was written, the “well regulated militia” were the citizens. There wasn’t a big enough standing army, if one at all, so the idea was that citizens with their own guns would be the militia to defend their country from tyranny and enemies inside and out.
TLDR: WE are the militia
Hard disagree. That interpretation is relatively new. There's nothing "well regulated" about just letting any random dipshit buy guns at Walmart.
@@vashsunglasses calling the militia into service is the well-regulated aspect. People would bring their own guns when called and would be organized into the standing army.
Samuel Adams is also the name of a beer lol. A musket is a gun. It only shot musket balls. I hope that helps.
back to back world war champs baby! U S A! U S A! LOL love your channel man keep up the great work
Recommendec : Paper Cartriges [ covers 1860 rifles and ammunition] 11 bang bang, [ features French muskets supplied to Colonials ] and British Muzzle loaders for detail. Paper cartridges has an interesting comparison of the 1860 Spencer rifle versus a Lee enfield of the 1940's.
17:34 A musket ball is a type of bullet for the firearms of the time. The tip of a modern 'bullet' is actually _the_ bullet, and the rest is a cartridge containing the gunpowder, plus the primer charge which is struck by the firing pin to ignite the powder. Colonial muskets did not use such convenient rounds (they hadn't been invented yet), and were loaded from the front end, the muzzle.
Preparing a muzzle-loader for firing involved pouring in gunpowder, some form of wadding such as a bit of paper to help contain it for firing, and the musket ball, then tamping it all in place using the ramrod, a special long, thin tool that was mounted on the underneath side of the barrel when not in use. The gunpowder would have been set off by a bit of flint that was part of the cocked hammer, which when the trigger was pulled struck a piece of steel and produced a spark (similar to modern cigarette lighters), igniting the powder and propelling the ball.
Later innovations were developed where the bore of the barrel was given rifling grooves that would impart a spin to the bullet, making it more accurate, and these grooves are where we get the term 'rifle'. But colonial muskets would have been smooth-bore, and shot these round balls less accurately, at shorter distances, with lower muzzle velocity than more modern weapons.
Counter-intuitively, these low-velocity balls actually did more damage than smaller, faster modern bullets. If struck by a modern bullet in the arm, one might expect a relatively small wound. The larger, slower musket balls would obliterate the arm, the bone, and would usually require amputation due to the extensive damage.
Anyway, besides the high-level gun lore, the insult to the British of melting down a statue of their king to make ammunition against his army shows us somewhat of the spirit of these early patriots.
I live on the south shore of Massachusetts, and worked at a bar along the freedom trail in Boston for a few years. There are lots of cool historical places in this area. There is an old bunker in the town of Hull, im not sure if it's still accessible but growing up, it was a fun place to explore. The freedom trail is a walking trail that starts at the Boston Common and ends at the bunker Hill monument with all kinds of historical sites along the way. It passes the old church on Park Street that is connected to a cemetery were a lot of these people were buried, and the Sam Adams Brewery in Fanuel Hall (the brewery is not historical its just named after Sam Adams, but i believe theres a big statue of him outside), as well as the harbor where the tea party happened. If you're interested in history and ever visit boston, it's a fun way to explore the city.
A musket ball is the bullet fired out of the early rifles called "muskets".
A musket ball was the ammunition of a musket, the gun of the time. A paper (cloth?) holding a charge of black powder (gunpowder) was rammed into the barrel of the musket, then the musket ball projectile was rammed on top of the charge. The gun triggered the charge to fire, and the exploding black powder forced the musket ball out of the musket onto its target.
Today, a modern bullet has a charge in the bottom and the projectile at the top in one shell, and once the shell is spent, it can be reloaded.
The musket could fire only one shot before reloading. Your basic Glock today has a nicely-sized clip of, I think, at least 9 rounds.