Lucky escape no the Americans couldn't win there independence with out the help of the French of all people every one knows that America only win because the franch was helping them with out the French the yank wouldn't of got that far even the French have pointed this common fact out and let's not for get war of 1812 a war America lost badly against us British we kick there arse and what dose that tell you Americans was weak with out the French help and 1812 is a perfect example of that
IN THE EARLY 1930'S, THE USA DECIDED THAT, BRITAIN WAS THE MOST LIKELY, AND ABLE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, TO THREATEN AMERICA.( OUR NAVY, WAS STILL, THE LARGEST IN THE WORLD ) THEY THOUGHT WE WOULD BUILD UP A HUGE ARMY WITH THE CANADIANS, BUILD UP MILITARY GEAR AND STOCKS OF WHATEVER WAS NEEDED.. SO---THE AMERICANS DID THE SAME --( ONLY FOR REAL) WITH UNDERGROUND FORTS ,ALL ALONG THE BORDER WITH CANADA. SOME SAY, THOSE FORTS ARE STILL BURIED THERE. CRAZY WORLD HEH ?
At the time the US wasn't that valuable compared to other countries Britain occupied. Better to cut your losses, rather than risk something more valuable.
the point is money in some countries it was enough to have one regiment as an "occupation army" for the US colonies, they would need a minimum of 30 regiments, which was too expensive during the war with Napoleon besides, they learned a lesson for India in the US colonies when they arrived there, they acted as "allies" to the local Rajas which they helped with weapons in return, they opened trade to the British And little by little, more and more Raj was dependent on the British and the alliance so Britain literally controlled India without an army
@@JoannDavi that's exactly what they knew then, BTW the USA was poor until the first world war, only then did mass industrialization begin after mass immigration in the period 1900-1910
Britain burnt down Washington in 1814 as revenge for the Americans ransacking York (modern day Toronto), the British capital in Canada. We didn't try to retake America because at the time we were heavily involved in a war with France and didn't have the resources to fight two wars. One supposes fighting a war closer to home was more important than a war thousands of miles away. We finally defeated the French at the battle of Waterloo in 1815, by which time the country was war weary and didn't fight another war for 40 years. Another reason may be that during the war of independence British loyalists all moved to Canada and the US became a hostile country. Britain probably found it easier to hold on to Canada than try defeating the US.
It's because there was no worthwhile benefit for Britain to take the USA back. The original 13 colonies never provided any wealth to Britain. They had done nothing but cost Britain money, along with creating a huge debt from the war with France (1754-1763) to secure them. The taxation that ultimately triggered the War of Independence was created to pay off the debt from the war with France. Britain got nearly all of its wealth from India and its Caribbean colonies, and thus was always far more interested in those colonies and never really interested in the USA. It wasn't until the Civil War and afterwards that the USA began to become a serious wealth-producing nation.
I love what you're doing! So nice to find a channel that is both fun and informative. Canadian here, we gained independence also, we just waited a lot longer and asked politely.
I’ve not watched the video yet but I can honestly say that from the perspective of a UK education, it just simply wasn’t seen as worth it. India was the crowning glory of the British Empire (I believe that it was even referred to as the jewel in the crown), so it would have likely been seen as throwing good money after bad for little to no gain…and just not worth the effort that would be required.
At that time the US did not own the territory it wound up with, It was an amalgam of territories ruled over by Spain ( Mexico?) France etc., the British also held not only Canada but Orregon, so the US was inconsequential in geo political terms. The so called revolitionary war was not one the colonies actually one, but was one that Britain walked away from. If you would like to argue that point I can eleborate if you wish!
They did, in the War of 1812. The basic issue that kicked off this world was that the British navy was grabbing Americans on the sea to fight with them against the French (Napoleon). But they felt that this move was quite OK, because they really did not recognize the US as an independent country. As you mentioned, the Brits invaded Washington, DC and burnt more than just the White House. We did not actually win that war. It lasted long enough until the Europe Allies finally defeated Napoleon for the final time. So, a truce was signed, and by WW I America was close to the navy level with Britain, so there was never any other plan to 'invade' or attack America ever again. The Battle of New Orleans occurred after the truce was signed, but news of it had not reached New Orleans. This was a complete American victory, and the term "do not shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" was created in this war as Jackson setup his defensive line. But the war was over by then!
I think you'd enjoy learning about the history of the Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office (10 Downing Street). Larry is the current holder of the role, and there had been beef with Palmerstone the Chief Mouser to the Foreign Office.
We were busy in Europe, scrapping with the neighbours. Slapping down "The Frenchies" who were getting a tad uppity (again) The Seven Years War 1756-63 Against France America was a new colony (a backwater then) and were deemed insignificant in comparison to the issues at hand in Europe, and weren't really contributing to the wealth of the empire. ("Oh how that one came back and bit them on the arse in 1776!") All those taxes were becoming a tad annoying for the colonists back then. Between 1760 and 1775 the following happened 1764. The Sugar Act, tax on sugar and molasses imported into the colonies. 1765. The Stamp Atc, a tax on all printed materials such as newspapers, magazines, and legal documents. Even playing cards and pamphlets needed an official tax stamp. 1767, 1768. The Townsend Acts, indirect taxes on imports British goods such as glass, lead, pants, paper, and tea, 1774 The Coersive Acts ( The Boston Port Act, Massachusetts Government Act, Administration of Justice Act, Quartering Act, Quebec Act) These acts took away rights and self-governance in Massachusetts and caused further outrage and protests across the 13 Colonies Stoic faces soon changed to angry ones in the colonies and we all know how that ended up
The printing press was hugely important before and during the War of Independence. The northern states were largely loyalists but their main source of news and persuasive arguments (i.e. propaganda from radicals) came from pamphlets and newspapers printed in places like Boston, which had doubled in the preceding years. The northern states former allegiances is probably why Britain considered them to be most likely to be open to 'returning to the fold'. If Maine, New England, etc. could be turned, Britain may have seriously considered returning to reclaim the lost territories as a more viable prospect. Freedom of the press was clearly at the forefront of the minds of the writers of the Constitution, as was the formation of armed militias. You can indirectly blame Britain for Fox News and the prevalence of guns in the USA, as an evolution of the response to the War of Independence and fear that the British would return.
Well noticed just how powerful Britain was to fight two wars simultaneously between France and the US! This clip explains the reasoning behind that question pretty much to preserve Canada.
ive not watched the video yet, im wondering if they mention that there was no reason to as the american bill of rights meant the british still owned a vast majority of the 13 states, read the bill of rights and its clearly stated, all property and debts before independence are still valid after independence.
"But they really thought that?" They thought that the USA would fail and come back to the idea of rule by the English??? No they bloody didn't. Jeez - these stupid cartoon "history" vids do more harm than good.Who is the "they" who thought that ffs? I'm sorry - but I'm so pleased to see how much you want to learn and how much you HAVE learnt, and how well you put things together in your mind - it's quite thrilling to watch how much you've progressed. I hate to see you taken in by garbage like this. Recently this ridiculous & misinformed idea has suddenly sprung up and is asked about by several Americans on different forums. People go to great lengths to explain the REAL history surrounding this era, and there's hundreds of actual articles, historical data, and forums debunking this piece of rubbish. There's another offshoot question also doing the rounds about why didn't the USA go and "take over" Britain!!! Which proves that the people in the USA asking these silly questions have absolutely no grasp of history, trade, economics, industry, human rights, world history - or even their own history. Maybe these questions only come from all the people who have watched this inane cartoon?
We didn't go to most places as invaders, but as traders. What happened after that varied. We fought to hang on to the colonies of course, but once they were lost to us that was it. If we had returned it would have been a different scenario. Why would we go and waste men and money on people who would never cooperate with us. Pointless.
Contrary to popular modern opinion then the British Empire was more about trade then anything else. After independence then trade with the United States continued to flourish so no need to actually occupy the territories to trade with them. The issue came to a head with United States with the various acts to raise money from America for defence with the naval patrols and armed garrisons without representation. Wasn’t as such an Anti British feeling initially but desire for representation. However with trade flourishing then Britain could see no need to occupy as could trade without ne expense of the defence of the territory. Plus was rather busy with European neighbours which at the time far more important then America.
I've heard an Historian describe the US war of independence as the UKs Vietnam, very unpopular at home, i think the parliament restricted financing and you were supported by the French, very similar with Vietnam, unpopular at home, paid for by running up the deficit and they were supported by China.
I think even the British had grasped that out of range of the naval cannon, matters were far beyond them, apart from raids, to try to keep the republics army from attacking British North America. Trade boomed after 1812-15 conflict, a war the British really did not want. Napoleon was the war that had full British focus.
I mean when you have India, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Caribbeans, holdings in Africa, Canada, Australia, the middle east etc etc... You don't need the 13 colonies. They had the Ottomans and the french and the Russians to deal with.
The loyalists of the American colonies was the only reason to try and fight. Britain has only ever had a very small army (compared to European powers like Spain and France). We never could hold any place that really did not want us - local forces, loyalists were the only hope. France was the main threat to Britain. Once all the loyalist fled to Canada, there was nobody to fight for. War of 1812 was again in support of loyalists in Canada. So places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa all got their independence when they wanted it. India included and all other nations of the Commonwealth. The only place we left without peaceful transition was Aden - since the government of the day announced that we were leaving whatever.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are not independent (i.e. Republics). Their head of State is King Charles III of the UK. They have their own government but King Charles III could dissolve parliament if he wanted to.
Inacurate o the 1950 part smerica wasbt scary in 1950 but by tgen britain had offere tocprotect smerica fron europe so breaking itsnword wouldnt work out
One tribe of corrupt elitist took power from the previous corrupt tribe and that's how revolutions work . Plus wars are expensive and Britain was at war with others at the time and war on two or more fronts is not a good idea.
Excellent question, Could the US have stopped Britain in 1816 Once the post Waterloo hangover wore off, Against Wellington leading his Veterans, Most of the RN and no support for the US from France or Spain? I doubt it.
Yanks see reds under their beds In the early thirties they massed troops on the canadian border as they thought GB was going to invade from there backed by its empire 😂
If you read what Lord North PM was up to. They probably hadn't noticed. Just like today, permanently arguing and power struggle. Just another item to throw at each other. The Duke of Wellington, when he was elected to Parliament was astounded by them, he soon joined in. The Napoleonic wars didn't end until 1815.
I know you have to continually produce content, but reacting to lousy videos like these spoils your channel. Many US reactors fall into this trap; watching videos by Mojo is particularly dispiriting.
What I learnt about the burning of the white house was, Britain didn't do it, we escorted Canadian troops to DC, they started the fires THEN we joined in 4 shits n giggles
We were busy with the French
We've ALWAYS been busy with the French 😂
To quote Al Murray "we had a lucky escape"
Plus they still work for us 😉
@@naiboz Plus it was Saturday afternoon and the footy was on.
Lucky escape no the Americans couldn't win there independence with out the help of the French of all people every one knows that America only win because the franch was helping them with out the French the yank wouldn't of got that far even the French have pointed this common fact out and let's not for get war of 1812 a war America lost badly against us British we kick there arse and what dose that tell you Americans was weak with out the French help and 1812 is a perfect example of that
dont forget the Americans invaded Canada and had the nerve to call it the 2nd war for independence ... how does that make sense
IN THE EARLY 1930'S, THE USA DECIDED THAT, BRITAIN WAS THE MOST LIKELY, AND ABLE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, TO THREATEN AMERICA.( OUR NAVY, WAS STILL, THE LARGEST IN THE WORLD ) THEY THOUGHT WE WOULD BUILD UP A HUGE ARMY WITH THE CANADIANS, BUILD UP MILITARY GEAR AND STOCKS OF WHATEVER WAS NEEDED.. SO---THE AMERICANS DID THE SAME --( ONLY FOR REAL) WITH UNDERGROUND FORTS ,ALL ALONG THE BORDER WITH CANADA. SOME SAY, THOSE FORTS ARE STILL BURIED THERE. CRAZY WORLD HEH ?
And manages lose most battles to the cannadian garison before the army even git sent yo the continent
We Brits had enough on our plate all around the world. 😊
At the time the US wasn't that valuable compared to other countries Britain occupied. Better to cut your losses, rather than risk something more valuable.
the point is money
in some countries it was enough to have one regiment as an "occupation army"
for the US colonies, they would need a minimum of 30 regiments, which was too expensive during the war with Napoleon
besides, they learned a lesson for India in the US colonies
when they arrived there, they acted as "allies" to the local Rajas
which they helped with weapons in return, they opened trade to the British
And little by little, more and more Raj was dependent on the British and the alliance
so Britain literally controlled India without an army
Very short-sighted of the Brits to think that India was more valuable than the US.
@@JoannDavi that's exactly what they knew then,
BTW the USA was poor until the first world war, only then did mass industrialization begin after mass immigration in the period 1900-1910
You might be Canadian if we had annexed Rhode Island . It's a clever little video .
Just think, had things panned out a little differently you’d now be saying ‘eh?’ after every sentence and singing ‘Oh Canada’😂
and apologising a lot... 😁
I love your pauses. We watch for your reactions. Please don't stop pausing. How else will we know what you're thinking!!!
For Britain it was kinda like kicking that annoying kid out of the house, but keeping in touch.
Well we couldn't be bothered to interrupt our tea break, and boy were we right.
Britain burnt down Washington in 1814 as revenge for the Americans ransacking York (modern day Toronto), the British capital in Canada. We didn't try to retake America because at the time we were heavily involved in a war with France and didn't have the resources to fight two wars. One supposes fighting a war closer to home was more important than a war thousands of miles away. We finally defeated the French at the battle of Waterloo in 1815, by which time the country was war weary and didn't fight another war for 40 years. Another reason may be that during the war of independence British loyalists all moved to Canada and the US became a hostile country. Britain probably found it easier to hold on to Canada than try defeating the US.
It's because there was no worthwhile benefit for Britain to take the USA back. The original 13 colonies never provided any wealth to Britain. They had done nothing but cost Britain money, along with creating a huge debt from the war with France (1754-1763) to secure them. The taxation that ultimately triggered the War of Independence was created to pay off the debt from the war with France. Britain got nearly all of its wealth from India and its Caribbean colonies, and thus was always far more interested in those colonies and never really interested in the USA. It wasn't until the Civil War and afterwards that the USA began to become a serious wealth-producing nation.
more to gain in africa
I love what you're doing! So nice to find a channel that is both fun and informative. Canadian here, we gained independence also, we just waited a lot longer and asked politely.
We had the French, Dutch, and Spanish to deal with. Also other colonies. We wanted the lucrative Canadian colonies too for the fur.
As Al Murray once said we didn’t need to because you have been working for us ever since.
I did read somewhere that the Duke of Wellington was asked this question and his response was if I remember correctly. “Nothing to be gained “
HI Connor, we were too busy running the largest Empire the world has even seen .....
And today you're The 51st State.
I’ve not watched the video yet but I can honestly say that from the perspective of a UK education, it just simply wasn’t seen as worth it. India was the crowning glory of the British Empire (I believe that it was even referred to as the jewel in the crown), so it would have likely been seen as throwing good money after bad for little to no gain…and just not worth the effort that would be required.
At that time the US did not own the territory it wound up with, It was an amalgam of territories ruled over by Spain ( Mexico?) France etc., the British also held not only Canada but Orregon, so the US was inconsequential in geo political terms. The so called revolitionary war was not one the colonies actually one, but was one that Britain walked away from. If you would like to argue that point I can eleborate if you wish!
They did, in the War of 1812. The basic issue that kicked off this world was that the British navy was grabbing Americans on the sea to fight with them against the French (Napoleon). But they felt that this move was quite OK, because they really did not recognize the US as an independent country. As you mentioned, the Brits invaded Washington, DC and burnt more than just the White House. We did not actually win that war. It lasted long enough until the Europe Allies finally defeated Napoleon for the final time. So, a truce was signed, and by WW I America was close to the navy level with Britain, so there was never any other plan to 'invade' or attack America ever again. The Battle of New Orleans occurred after the truce was signed, but news of it had not reached New Orleans. This was a complete American victory, and the term "do not shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" was created in this war as Jackson setup his defensive line. But the war was over by then!
the war of 1812 was not an attempt to retake the u.s .read the history properly without your personal bias.
I think you'd enjoy learning about the history of the Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office (10 Downing Street).
Larry is the current holder of the role, and there had been beef with Palmerstone the Chief Mouser to the Foreign Office.
Probably one of the most photographed cats in the world .
Brits just wanted to go home for a decent cup of tea.
they weren't scared after the 1850s they calculated that the upside wasn't worth the downside risk.
One of his better reaction vids, methinks. Well comprehended, Connor
Bigger issues than worrying about septics
We were a bit busy with a french bloke
We were busy in Europe, scrapping with the neighbours. Slapping down "The Frenchies" who were getting a tad uppity (again)
The Seven Years War 1756-63 Against France
America was a new colony (a backwater then) and were deemed insignificant in comparison to the issues at hand in Europe, and weren't really contributing to the wealth of the empire.
("Oh how that one came back and bit them on the arse in 1776!")
All those taxes were becoming a tad annoying for the colonists back then.
Between 1760 and 1775 the following happened
1764. The Sugar Act, tax on sugar and molasses imported into the colonies.
1765. The Stamp Atc, a tax on all printed materials such as newspapers, magazines, and legal documents. Even playing cards and pamphlets needed an official tax stamp.
1767, 1768. The Townsend Acts, indirect taxes on imports British goods such as glass, lead, pants, paper, and tea,
1774 The Coersive Acts ( The Boston Port Act, Massachusetts Government Act, Administration of Justice Act, Quartering Act, Quebec Act) These acts took away rights and self-governance in Massachusetts and caused further outrage and protests across the 13 Colonies
Stoic faces soon changed to angry ones in the colonies and we all know how that ended up
The printing press was hugely important before and during the War of Independence. The northern states were largely loyalists but their main source of news and persuasive arguments (i.e. propaganda from radicals) came from pamphlets and newspapers printed in places like Boston, which had doubled in the preceding years. The northern states former allegiances is probably why Britain considered them to be most likely to be open to 'returning to the fold'. If Maine, New England, etc. could be turned, Britain may have seriously considered returning to reclaim the lost territories as a more viable prospect. Freedom of the press was clearly at the forefront of the minds of the writers of the Constitution, as was the formation of armed militias. You can indirectly blame Britain for Fox News and the prevalence of guns in the USA, as an evolution of the response to the War of Independence and fear that the British would return.
They knew what it would turn into.
Well noticed just how powerful Britain was to fight two wars simultaneously between France and the US! This clip explains the reasoning behind that question pretty much to preserve Canada.
Um, during the War of 1812, the young United States:
- burned down York/Toronto
- routed the royal navy at The Battle of New Orleans
York was attacked by the vikings hence its name..yorvik
They don't want more trouble.
No.... who is the bloke talking? You know.... he could be anyone! Or no one at all of any authority.
ive not watched the video yet, im wondering if they mention that there was no reason to as the american bill of rights meant the british still owned a vast majority of the 13 states, read the bill of rights and its clearly stated, all property and debts before independence are still valid after independence.
Interesting that Connor I thought the same reason why we didn't regain US 😊
"But they really thought that?" They thought that the USA would fail and come back to the idea of rule by the English??? No they bloody didn't. Jeez - these stupid cartoon "history" vids do more harm than good.Who is the "they" who thought that ffs? I'm sorry - but I'm so pleased to see how much you want to learn and how much you HAVE learnt, and how well you put things together in your mind - it's quite thrilling to watch how much you've progressed. I hate to see you taken in by garbage like this.
Recently this ridiculous & misinformed idea has suddenly sprung up and is asked about by several Americans on different forums. People go to great lengths to explain the REAL history surrounding this era, and there's hundreds of actual articles, historical data, and forums debunking this piece of rubbish. There's another offshoot question also doing the rounds about why didn't the USA go and "take over" Britain!!! Which proves that the people in the USA asking these silly questions have absolutely no grasp of history, trade, economics, industry, human rights, world history - or even their own history.
Maybe these questions only come from all the people who have watched this inane cartoon?
It was the British Empire, not the English Empire. At that Time Britain was made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
We didn't go to most places as invaders, but as traders. What happened after that varied. We fought to hang on to the colonies of course, but once they were lost to us that was it. If we had returned it would have been a different scenario. Why would we go and waste men and money on people who would never cooperate with us. Pointless.
Contrary to popular modern opinion then the British Empire was more about trade then anything else.
After independence then trade with the United States continued to flourish so no need to actually occupy the territories to trade with them.
The issue came to a head with United States with the various acts to raise money from America for defence with the naval patrols and armed garrisons without representation.
Wasn’t as such an Anti British feeling initially but desire for representation.
However with trade flourishing then Britain could see no need to occupy as could trade without ne expense of the defence of the territory.
Plus was rather busy with European neighbours which at the time far more important then America.
I've heard an Historian describe the US war of independence as the UKs Vietnam, very unpopular at home, i think the parliament restricted financing and you were supported by the French, very similar with Vietnam, unpopular at home, paid for by running up the deficit and they were supported by China.
I think even the British had grasped that out of range of the naval cannon, matters were far beyond them, apart from raids, to try to keep the republics army from attacking British North America. Trade boomed after 1812-15 conflict, a war the British really did not want. Napoleon was the war that had full British focus.
Lucky escape😂😂😂😂😂
Actually it probably wasn't worth the effort.
Long supply chain them days
We are happy to leave it to the Mexicans, Irish and Germans....;)
And k
Mad king trump
I mean when you have India, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Caribbeans, holdings in Africa, Canada, Australia, the middle east etc etc... You don't need the 13 colonies. They had the Ottomans and the french and the Russians to deal with.
The loyalists of the American colonies was the only reason to try and fight. Britain has only ever had a very small army (compared to European powers like Spain and France). We never could hold any place that really did not want us - local forces, loyalists were the only hope. France was the main threat to Britain. Once all the loyalist fled to Canada, there was nobody to fight for. War of 1812 was again in support of loyalists in Canada. So places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa all got their independence when they wanted it. India included and all other nations of the Commonwealth. The only place we left without peaceful transition was Aden - since the government of the day announced that we were leaving whatever.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are not independent (i.e. Republics). Their head of State is King Charles III of the UK. They have their own government but King Charles III could dissolve parliament if he wanted to.
We were more interested in the west indies than America. It was more profitable per acre and required much less investment for profit.
if the french wasnt trying to be the boss you would be pronouncing tomato as tomarto...not tomaydo.
Did you know new york is a viking name?
Inacurate o the 1950 part smerica wasbt scary in 1950 but by tgen britain had offere tocprotect smerica fron europe so breaking itsnword wouldnt work out
Use MP dollar with tea out you throw that with tea away boxes of it revenger sweet
To quote Al Murray when asked about America. It was a good idea that got out of hand!
And is soon to end with an already mighty dictator ie king
One tribe of corrupt elitist took power from the previous corrupt tribe and that's how revolutions work . Plus wars are expensive and Britain was at war with others at the time and war on two or more fronts is not a good idea.
srry mate Napoleon was annoying had to take care of that first 🤺🤺
Excellent question, Could the US have stopped Britain in 1816 Once the post Waterloo hangover wore off, Against Wellington leading his Veterans, Most of the RN and no support for the US from France or Spain? I doubt it.
We couldn't be bothered with the traitors anymore 😁
Simple you were not worth it.
Yanks see reds under their beds
In the early thirties they massed troops on the canadian border as they thought GB was going to invade from there backed by its empire 😂
If you read what Lord North PM was up to. They probably hadn't noticed. Just like today, permanently arguing and power struggle. Just another item to throw at each other. The Duke of Wellington, when he was elected to Parliament was astounded by them, he soon joined in. The Napoleonic wars didn't end until 1815.
And they still cant speak english.
Mostly because you said " us" meaning you are not part of us anymore,
😂 India was more profitable at the time.
I think we had other bigger fish to fry
Probably because we didn’t want to
I know you have to continually produce content, but reacting to lousy videos like these spoils your channel. Many US reactors fall into this trap; watching videos by Mojo is particularly dispiriting.
We read Nostradamus' prophesies about the US and a bloke called biden....
It's a bit like being sick. I didn't want to be sick. But I dont want it back.
What I learnt about the burning of the white house was, Britain didn't do it, we escorted Canadian troops to DC, they started the fires THEN we joined in 4 shits n giggles