British Guy Reacts to 'AMERICAN REVOLUTION FROM THE BRITISH PERSPECTIVE' - 'Was King George right?!'
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 พ.ย. 2023
- Original video: • American Independence ...
HISTORY REACTION CHANNEL: / @historynutreacts
INSTAGRAM: / jbickertonuk
TWITTER: / jbickertonuk
I react to American Independence From the British Perspective from the Armchair Historian. Covers the events leading up to the American Revolution from the Seven Years War onwards, with a particular focus on how Britain alienated its colonists including taxation, why the British were unable to win the war in the first few years and how they were defeated once a European coalition formed against them. Hope you enjoy and find out whether the video changed my mind! - บันเทิง
11:04 Third Amendment of the Constitution of the United States - “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
I was gonna say this too
It is actually a rather meaningless Amendment too as it still allows it in war-time.
The 3rd Amendment was a direct result of recent memories of civilians forced to quarter British soldiers in their homes.
Somehow we’ve allowed “Representatives” In the USA Tax the ever living shit out of Us today.
Can I throw my medication in the Boston Harbor to Object?
British Guy glad I met you! as an American It would be interesting to hear the British side of the American Revolution because I never heard your side of it before!
To answer your question about quartering troops... The first nine amendments to the Constitution directly coincide to things that the British did that we didn't like the 10th amendment being the state's rights amendment didn't really have anything to do with the British and had more to do with I balance of power between federal and state authority, but the first nine amendments in the Bill of Rights are directly coincided with what the British did prior to the 1776
I don't think we know your first name, you mysterious British Guy who appears and disappears, but this video was 👍. Informative and entertaining 👍. More please.
A good tv series you might want to check out about the Early days of the Revolution is called "Turn, Washington's Spies"
It makes me hate the rebels more than I ever did before by having an adulterer be the protagonist (With a faithful and loving wife.). Plus the British were pretty cool with the whole *CHECKS NOTES* freeing slaves and forming the Queen's Rangers (Let us not forget the American woman blackmailing her former slave into doing her bidding.).
The British started Slavery in the Colonies @@johnnotrealname8168
Nice to see other perspectives. Thanks!
Outstanding reaction.
You correctly identified and pronounced Pontiac's Rebellion.
I do not know whether there was ever any serious consideration by the British Parliament to grant representation to the American colonies. I wonder if anyone with foresight would have objected on the grounds that the size of the colonies would allow for such massive population growth that eventually the MPs of the UK proper might become a minority in their own Parliament.
Are you aware that the eight British soldiers involved in the "Boston Massacre" were defended in court by John Adams? Six soldiers were acquitted, but two were convicted of manslaughter. Being their first offenses, the punishments were (drastically) reduced from death to "branding of the thumb" in open court.
The narrator of the original video is splitting hairs a bit by claiming the Hessians were not mercenaries. True, rather than being paid individually, like most mercenaries, their home state or their lord was paid. Perhaps this matters in that the Hessians were more likely to fight as honorable soldiers than amoral mercenaries.
The Wikipedia article for Edmund Burke quotes some remarkably prescient statements he made in opposition to the policies of Parliament toward the American colonies.
You highlighted that by 1780 or so, the UK was also at war with France, Spain, and The Netherlands. You also mentioned the extraordinary profits made from the sugar islands in the Caribbean. Whenever I hear other Americans crowing about how "we" defeated the British, I think it's more accurate to say we outlasted them, like what happened to the U.S. in the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. (Also, saying "we" is untrue for many Americans, myself included. My ancestors were peasants in Ireland and Italy at that time.)
You made an interesting argument that if the UK had persisted longer after WW2 in its efforts to retain its empire, would this have soured relations with the U.S.? I tend to think not, for two reasons: the danger of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. was not particularly concerned at that time to the treatment of non-white peoples in poor countries. You can make the argument that not much has changed.
We've seen other successful revolutions against a mighty colonial power or for the creation of a democratic government since the American Revolution. This knowledge can make us forget just how radical and unlikely to succeed was the American endeavor.
I find it ironic that much of the intellectual foundation for the American Revolution and later the drafting of the Constitution was laid down by British Enlightenment figures. I remember writing a report in school about John Locke.
I've read some of the essays and letters written by still-loyal Americans (before the fighting began) in protest of the actions by the King and Parliament. They did not understand why Great Britain was risking unrest and increased smuggling at best, outright civil war at worst, over some taxes. They made the argument that the disruptions to trade would cost Great Britain far more in lost profits than they hoped to gain from the taxes, and it's difficult to disagree with that. Also, it's not a widely told part of the history, but the Americans claimed that according to the royal charters of the colonies, Parliament did not have the authority to tax the colonies. They did have the authority to regulate trade between them and the UK. The taxes that Parliament levied were tariffs on trade. Aside from the principle of "no taxation without representation," there was a legal disagreement as to whether Parliament had the authority to create these tariffs. I would guess that this disagreement contributed to the passage of the Declaratory Act in 1766.
A lot of this is correct and wrong sort of. I would recommend you read "The True History of the American Revolution (1902) By Sydney George Fisher as he gets into a lot of this.
There was already representation in the British Parliament by envoys (For trade policy and the like.) but of course there were no voting Members of Parliament. As for your latter point, Loyalist pamphlets of the time did indicate that Britain would or should or something do so and then the population growth in America would mean America rather than Britain would become the Metropole and the King would settle there. Not sure patriots or the King were particularly fond of this.
Yes, he made some interesting arguments which undermine the patriot position in hindsight and some odd remarks about the Irish if I recall correctly. His main argument was against a standing army which makes it awkward when America adopted one. It also rather shows the British to be good. The crowd was attacking the soldiers and so they defended themselves. Granted it was seen as excessive but then the British served them Justice so well that a Founding Father was defending the soldiers.
The Hessians were not mercenaries. They were auxiliary troops adopted from a foreign state's armed forces and not some rag-tag bunch of adventurers. This is as usual American propaganda.
I will forgive him because of his speeches against the East India Company and for Ireland.
Ironically I would turn this around, it is more accurate to write that the British outlasted the coalition of three countries whose combined navy is much greater than their own and whose resources were comparably great. In all this the great irony is that the Americans took their spoils and abandoned their allies. France gained nothing, Spain got Florida after much exertion and the Dutch were Dutching I guess. The true miracle is how much the British got out of their peace treaties, trading partner in America whilst ridding themselves of uppity rebels, not many concessions to France and Florida to Spain as opposed to Gibraltar or something and naval hegemony. The U.S. public are such weasels yes, although those two were Insurgencies.
It would have a bit ("1959 was a very strange time A bad year for Labour and a good year for wine Uncle Ike was our American pal And nobody talked about the Suez Canal..."). I think you are forgetting one aspect of the Cold War, never let the soviets have an advantage. Listen to Richard Milhous Nixon's 1960 Presidential Campaign Television advertisement entitled: "Civil Rights" in which he has like two points about how it is good because commies bad and Coloureds watching. Also this is a bit of a stupid argument as plenty of these @~?£$%& decolonised countries were the opposite of free and democratic whether commie, not so or non-aligned. Listen to Olufela Olusegun Oludotun Ransome-Kuti's songs against the Nigerian military dictatorship to hear how much they loved their fellow Africans. Also the soviets were not exactly buddy-buddy with their minorities either.
It reinforces how unjustified it was.
I barely remember it but Chapter VII: "The Rights of Man" in the book I mentioned goes into this and it is my favourite chapter thus far in how the intellectual tradition is layed out.
Ah yes the notably stupid *CHECKS NOTES* taxes. What are you on? It was about authority and money, do not pretend the British were doing nothing to protect or help the colonials either. Also tea was cheaper when not smuggled, it had nothing to do with that. It would sure but an unruly colony is worse. Parliament's authority is paramount. Yes the liberal patriots actually argued that the charters only mentioned the King and not Parliament therefore only the King has authority over the colonies (I leave you in the spirit of 1688 to mull over the retardation that overswelled them with that argument.). The external taxation argument, another stupid one. I leave you with a contemporary pamphlet entitled: "The Claim of the Colonies to an Exemption from Internal Taxes Imposed by Authority of Parliament, Examined: In a letter from a Gentleman in London, to his friend in America" (1765) By William Knox. It was so stupid the patriots dropped it because there is no such thing as external taxes. This reveals how slimy and disingenuous the Americans were expecting special treatment whilst moving the goalpost through their own moronic indefatigability. That last part is especially precious because what @~?£ing representation? The rich? Are we seriously going to argue that because some Toffs did not want to pay their taxes they should sever the bonds between the Oceans? The Americans did not have universal male suffrage in most states until the 1820s (A full fourty years afterwards.) and in many more until the 1850s and of course this is not mentioning other populations. Let us not forget that a gripe was the British preventing the colonials from stealing Indian land. They banned slavery *AFTER* the power they claimed liberty from and blamed a King who did nothing but act Constitutionally and appropriately towards his people meanwhile demonising loyal subjects and fellow Americans because they dare hope they shall not suffer separation from their Sovereign. Utter imbecility! The fact is that of all the revolutions, the American one was the most unnecessary, other than perhaps Brazil but that is pretty unique.
@@johnnotrealname8168 It's sounds like you have a long winded chip on your shoulder, it was in the past, get over it!!
@@Timbothruster-fh3cwDude, I have not consulted this video in months. I do not understand comments like these. I do not care.
This was a great video. I think I learned more about the revolutionary War from this video than I ever did in school.
Did George Washington actually start the French/Indian War..?
Pretty much.
Upon looking at both Oversimplified video and Armchair Historian's video, Washington not only help start the French/Indian War but the entire Seven Years War (though obviously he had a lot of help in that).
Enjoyed this story a lot. ☝
The only thing that may have worked for a time would if if the king declared the colonies his royal possessions like the Chanel islands and let the colonies have their own Congress to raise taxes for a common defense and trade. Most likely though, America would still have become fully independent in time as the culture had developed to a point the British were commonly seen as foreign meddlers.
Yes, the "special relationship" between the US and UK is a fairly recent phenomenon. As late as the 1930's, the US military had drawn up plans in case of war with the UK.
I've asked this question before :
George Washington , Thomas Jefferson , John Hancock , and so on were they patriots or insurrecctionists guess it depends on your perspective . I call them patriots.
Have you seen the musical 1776? Benjamin Franklin makes many witty observations about terminology and one’s perspective.
Traitors to their King.
Some southern Loyalists moved to Florida perhaps not wanting to brave the chilly wilderness of Ontario or Nova Scotia. The Spanish did not want British subjects when they regained that territory. So some Loyalists then went to help found the Bahamas, they and the slaves they brought with them.
Yes. But we forgive him now ;-)
Taxation without Representation is Much WORSE NOW!
Have you seen “representation” Today?
$800Billion Of Taxes on Planes and ships…..Little to no Taxes Spent for Health or Education.
I cant Dump my Medicine in The Boston Harbor . They have a Strangle hold on our rights to be healthy TODAY.
We threw Tea in the Atlantic Ocean…..But Tossing our Medications in the ocean will not be a great way to protest our lack of representation today
But that's the whole world now thanks to Globalism.
You have representation in spades.
*_HELLLOOOOOOOOOOO!!_*
This is my opinion but I always view the Seven Years War and the French and Indian War as two separate conflicts. The French and Indian War began in 1754. The Seven Years War wasn't declared until 1756. Yes the participants are the same but the French and Indian War is the Conflict in North America. The Seven Years War is the European/Global conflict. It is also unique for conflicts during that time period. Most wars started between the European nations in Europe and then spread to their respective colonies. This time the conflict started in North America and then spread to Europe.
This is partially incorrect. If European States clashed, their colonies did but if the colonies did the European States did not necessarily. This is shown by the Spanish and Portuguese duking (Is it dooking?) it out in South-America every ten seconds and by the fact getting European armies to the Americas is what decided the conflict as well as Indian allies changing sides but that was as a result of Britain winning.
It's Fine! Now ? Why cause i am here to watch your reactions 111 th like and 36th comment ...thinking about taking back the like however.
Not for you but the video or your reaction but the video you just exposed that had no solid history . W.T.H. was that propaganda. Please tell you as a history buff you have study an unbiases and an unbridged history ? Keep posting and i'll keep watching and calling out just want your opinion nothing more and i'll keep watching
Yeah, that was cool. I've spent my life sharing the importance of how the u.s. came to be and everybody's like, that's too old, WTF! History was always boring 😅
Not quartering is 3rd amendment