It makes me chuckle when I see Americans on social media saying to British people, we kicked your ass. I always think to myself. Their greatest victory is nothing but a mere footnote in British history 😂. And the colonists actually won very few battles. And it was public opinion back home, that didn't want to slaughter their own kin. And at the time, the colony wasn't financially important as India & the West Indies. If Britain really wanted the American colony & British people back home weren't opposed to slaughtering their cousins. They could have called in Regiments from India & fleets from the Indies, Europe, Africa & India to retake it.
After the french-indian war, started by George Washington, we were left with the entirety of America with absolutely no idea what to do with it and colonists complaining about paying taxes for the war they started 🤷
@@OneTrueScotsman if India with 65% of the empires population and direct training by Britain couldn't do it alone then theres zero chance the 13 colonies ever could, and its doubtful the capital would ever move from England.
@@OneTrueScotsman ofc it was inevitable. just as it was for Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand etc. However it would have been a very different US.
@@Trebor74the Americans that were paying those taxes were not the ones who asked nor needed that protection dip shit. They weren’t even alive during the war at this time. Y’all seem to not understand that these “subjects” of the kings were not the same generation sent by the king. Americans were now 4-5 generations in, meaning most at the time have never even been to UK.
Were the rebels traitors? They took up arms against their lawful government and allied themselves with of all people, the French. Of course they were. It really is a bit rich for Americans to view it as anything else when you consider the view they take of the Confederacy doing exactly the same thing.
Exactly, and independence just happened to be pushed by the largest landowners in the 13 colonies. Personally, I've always taken issue with the "taxation without representation" refrain - yes, taxes in the 13 colonies were applied arbitrarily but the actual tax burden was significantly lower than that in the UK & Ireland at this time. Furthermore, the concept of universal suffrage wouldn't become vox pop. for another century so that argument has always struck me as revisionist.
@@jamiegrant5955the only reason they were taxed really is because they wanted the British army over there defending against the French and the natives during the 7 years war.
You know very little to nothing about American history do you? At this point in time, these Americans were not from the UK. Hell, majority had never been. They were 4-5 generations in. These “traitors” at this point in time had no loyalty to the king. They never did. And the people the British were protecting the colonies for were not them. It was their grandfathers and great grandfathers
What you have to remember back in those days, Connor, is not just the values of strategical areas, but also trade areas . . . Britain back then had a rather large trading empire, and the new 13 colonies of America was not a huge portion of this at this time . . . All countries in the empire were paying taxes in some way, mainly for aiding their security, and also did very well trade-wise from it, too . . . be it troops on the ground for law and order, or the navy to combat pirates or adventurers attacking trade ships, etc . . . it was basically paying taxes to pay your way for this . . . But, America got a tad uppity about helping to pay towards those that were protecting them. (very different now in the US, as you know, as your Gov spends almost a trillion a year from your taxes on the very same issue!) America (The 13 Col's) were still comparatively new though, and trade & taxes were still small - compared to other larger colonies - so when the issue of French & Spanish wars started up again during your own rebellion, protection and defending of the best tax and trading paying colonies, and their trade routes were naturally focused on far more . . . Take away the various wars and battles with those 2 however, and the British Gov could have sent anywhere up to 100,000 (+ or -)? , additional troops to bolster the forces already there . . . So in a way, without the French and Spanish causing extra problems at the time, your patriots may well not have succeeded at all . . . But, as they say, that's all back in the days of our past history now . . .
@@Trebor74 Not to mention that the taxes that were rebeled against was in order to pay for troops which were dragged into various conflicts expanding the colonies... Much like they were dragged into India by The East India Trading Company. (Not to say stuff that happened there wasn't the empire's fault)
... but then had to impose their own taxes to fund their own armies. And the "Rich greedy businessmen " still remain in power with their one-party state that poses as a two-party state.
In one way it's a lot more complicated than that but basically you're absolutely right. Not to mention that for better or worse the British then tried to protect (for their own reasons) the indigenous population while it suited their ends. And let's not forget that the USA later resisted British attempts to end the slave trade for a long time. All of which is in the past and these days we tend to forgive our US cousins all those kinds of adolescent outbursts. That said it would be good if they by now could get their heads around the idea of democracy not being based on a 'who has the most money wins' type of contest.
HOMICIDES IN THE USA - Not since 1776, just the numbers from 1969. Happy Independence America. Since 1968, more than 1.5 million Americans have lost their lives in gun-related incidents. To put this into perspective, this surpasses the total number of service members killed in every war in U.S. history, which stands at approximately 1.2 million. The impact of gun violence has been devastating, with mass shootings like the Las Vegas massacre and other attacks becoming increasingly common. In 2020, the homicide rate in the United States reached 7.8 per 100,000 people, the highest recorded since 1953. This increase was the largest year-over-year surge in the murder rate since at least 1954. While the numbers have fluctuated over the years, addressing violence remains a critical challenge for society. Then there are deaths by drug abuse etcetera. What about starting a War Of Freedom From Fentanyl and a ton of other assorted recreational drugs. Users are slaves to their habit, generally broke since the stuff is way over priced (American Capitalism) and risk heavy fines and jail. THAT'S FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE?
The emotional connection you feel Connor is interesting. We know a lot of your ancestry is from Ireland and Lancashire, and went to America after these events. If those ancestors fought, it would have been on the British side. How much of your ancestry was there at the time I wonder?
Not a bad video but still fails to address some important points that Americans aren't taught: 1) From a British point of view the American War of Independence was just a rebellion of some arsey colonists in the midst of it's ongoing on/off struggle with France and it's ally Spain. As such it was an annoying distraction from the real and much bigger war being fought all around the world, wherever these countries had colonies and trade routes. 2) France sent in agent provocateurs to whip up anti British sentiment and encourage the colonists to rebell. They also sent them funds and arms. The colonists were useful idiots in France's strategy. The idea was either Britain would send forces from other parts of it's Empire. This would then leave them exposed to being nabbed by the French. Or if they didn't then the French would have an opportunity to win it's North America territories back. 3) Britain's best troops were needed elsewhere in the Empire. The ones stationed in N.America at the start of the rebellion were green or regiments that had been sent to recover from the fever islands of the Caribbean and were under strength. Either way British forces would be spread thin, especially after all the cuts. N.America also had the worst officers, as there was little chance of promotion there. Instead it was the place to dump the drunks and incompetents, etc so the leadership was poor. By the time any half decent troops and officers were sent the British were very much on the back foot and the rebellion had grown much stronger than if it had been dealt with sensibly by competent officers at the start. 4) Compared to the rest of the Empire the N.American colonies had little value. India, the West Indies and East Indies brought in a huge amount of wealth. Places like South Africa and Gibralter had great strategic value. In contrast the 13 colonies just had a bit of fur trading and timber. This was mainly pine rather than hardwoods like oak or teak which were needed for ship building, so of low value and only of use in cheap furniture. Whilst Britain didn't want to lose the 13 colonies the reality was if something had to be sacrificed they were far less valuable than other parts of the empire and because they covered such a large area would need much greater forces to protect.
The British government has given back 95% of its empire and of course, America would have been given its independence even if they didn't fight for it. I watched a similar video on TH-cam which concluded that America, had they waited 100 years or so, would have been granted independence and as slavery was already illegal at that time, the abolishment of slavery in the US would have taken place waaaaaaay earlier. Us Brits might not be everyone's cup of tea but we recognise our own mistakes and have tried to make amends where possible. Modern Britain is a shell of what it once was. But at least we aren't French 🤣
😮 Connor... I thought you studied History in Uni (College) ? What _exactly_ did you study - what _era/s_ and _whose_ histories ? Surely, your own (America's ?) From the begining of "The Thirteen Colonies" and the "War of Independence" at least, and up to, (maybe) The 1930's "Great Depression" / "Prohibition" or, what, please ? I'm curious. Thanks. 🤔🇬🇧🖖
Don't forget Connor, the 13 colonies were British colonies, the people were British citizens, the British Army were there to protect the colonies and stop the migration of people into the Indian territories as per the Agreements made with the different tribes at the time, Britain had no intention of expanding the colonies and treaties and agreements were in place to protect both the Native lands and the colonies, those agreements were destroyed when you gained independence, America gaining its independence lead directly to the Native genocide nothing to do with the British even though we still get blamed........... so yeah, they were traitors.
Another aspect often overlooked:- The Patriot Movement started in Parliament back in 1725. At first they just took a stand against corruption, then later developed new ideas of reforming democracy. Although they did not want to loose the colonies, they believed that all Englishmen including American ones, had the democratic right to choose their own governance. My home town of Rotherham South Yorkshire has a monument to the Boston Tea Party named Boston Castle. Not far away at Parlington Hall is a Victory Arch built in 1783 to celebrate American Liberty. Our local politicians such as Lords Effingham and Rockingham have American Cities, Counties and even Warships named for them. These men were not regarded as traitors, but simply formed the Whig opposition in Parliament. In 1783 Lord Rockingham was invited to become Prime Minister, he agreed on the condition that he be allowed to set America free! The Patriot Party later renamed themselves the Liberal Party and so still exist in parliament to this day.
The cannon would have bits on it like that to make it easier to carry. Instead of wheeling the cannon assembled to another location. We would disassemble it and quickly move the cannon to some other location. And then reassemble it . Ready for use once again. We would practice this in the navy. It would be called the gun run . I was in charge of the little pin used to hold the wheel on 😂. I was very important 😂
and don't leave out cheap or free healthcare, better and less toxic fresher foods at lower prices AND lower overall taxation. Wonder what would have happened without the critical help of the French navy and their blockade of a few British ships.
@@aidencox790 Except for the fact that the healthcare in the UK is shite, taxes are lower in some states, you're right about the food but also forget that the UK is ruled tyrannically and one of the most unfree and crime ridden places in Europe, with the most arrogant annoying leftists in the Western World.
George Washington was a commissioned officer in His majesty’s armed forces during the Native American wars prior to the Revolutionary War and so will have sworn an oath of allegiance to the King his heirs and successors this oath is binding for life. I have sworn it myself twice. In this era it was what determined a persons character and was not sworn lightly. The Irish Republican Brotherhood refused to swear allegiance as did the Irish republicans in more recent times it means your honour is at stake. I can’t respect an oath breaker.
Patriots or greedy traitors depends on one's point of view . From this account it seems that reason should have prevailed before open hostilities and French / Spanish opportunism played a part . In the end it wasn't deemed worth the effort and resources to finish the war .Certainly the Colonies would have developed differently , and the native Americans would have fared better if we had .
Cornwallis had a lot of enemies at Horseguards, who controlled his supplies-that's how he failed. I strongly doubt you fully paid the French back- you refused to return their bullion from Fort Knox, in the arly 1930's, which is why you have such poor relations with France.
The overwhelming majority of British people neither know nor particularly care about the revolutionary wars. Its assigned an importance by Americans completely out of proportion to its actual significance. Theres been many, many many much bigger wars over here for us to deal with.
There was some sympathy back home. There is a folly on a hill near Rotherham called Boston Castle which was built as a sort of anti-war protest by an earl who resigned his commission in the army in protest at the war.
Don't for get at the same time England was trying to end the slave trade at the same time as this it is one thing thay have forgotten to mention in this all he is saying is correct, but we but the trying to end the slave trade by paying the navy and compensation to slave owners which almost hit 30 million which we finished paying for in 2015
It's all George's fault. You decide which one though. Just think how big the British Empire would have been if the American Colonies had not revolted. Maybe WWI would have never started, as Britain would have had a far superior army at its disposal. Why did the Americans not help the French in the Napoleonic Wars then?
No tax from America ever came to Britain, for a good explanation of this period, see The Last King of America by Andrew Roberts who was given permission by Queen Elizabeth to access the Royal Documents at Windsor Castle
From what I remember the 13 colonies tried to get Quebec into the war but as they were french citizens recently conquered they were in no rush to join another war which they saw as nothing to do with them
UK here. May I say never apologise if you do not know something. I watch this channel because I like your open honesty. I studied the American civil and the Napoleonic wars especially the peninsular campaign. I get tons wrong because the subject is so massive. You can write a book on a single battle. Or a book on the politics that led to the battle. So with that thanks for this channel.
Pretty much before the 7 years war the Americans were barely taxed at all, and when taxed it was at a much lower rate than the brits of the mainland. What changed after the 7 years war was essentially that Great Britain remembered her colonies existed. As for why Canada didn't rise up, most likely cause the local elite decided to not go against the crown. Add that to the fact that after the american revolution most american loyalists fled to Canada, and you have a good summary of Canadian loyalty to the king
@jensonthebastard actually I mean the settlers that remained loyal to the crown. Those that rebelled were also brits before the revolution. The only genuine Americans were the natives
@@spirosgreek1171 the thing about the american revolution is its all a complete work of fiction and myth the only facts are that the english people left america
As a Brit who lives near Gibraltar, I love the shout out Griff makes to the Great Siege of Gibraltar from 1779 - 1783. I've visited Gibraltar many times since moving here and the siege is a huge moment of pride in Gibraltarian history
10:35 Short answer: The Hudson Bay Company Explanation: Unlike the 13 Colonies which were "incorporated" as colonial settlements of the crown, with some kind of semblance of local government rule (only superseded by the Crown), much of the territories in the English (later British) Empire at the time were not formally incorporated and instead settled by people who worked for the many monopoly crown corporations that conducted day-to-day business in these territories: Examples include the Muscovy Company in Russia, the "well-known" East-India Company on the Indian Subcontinent, and in Canada much of the land was controlled by The Hudson Bay Company, which was a monopoly in fur trade and settlers in these lands were basically "company" colonists. The Acts passed by London really didn't apply to Canada at the time since crown corporations like the Hudson Bay Company were very autonomous and were left to "govern" themselves and by that: finding more ways to make money for the English crown in exchange for exemptions from English laws. Once these companies began to collapse in the mid 19th century things did change, but by then America was in the middle of its "Manifest Destiny" and "Civil War" phases.
I don't remember if I gave you this reference, Connor, but it definitely is a "must see": "How the USA Colonized the USA" by the excellent Johnny Harris (on YT) I wonder if they teach that in US schools?
sounds like the whole thing could have been avoided with both sides just communicating better and being reasonable lol. And then the french after losing loved the chance to help the Americans. but then lead to them being severely broke and causing the french revolution so guess we won in the end lol.
I think Canada was very different from the American colonies at the time. Not only was the French Quebec factor, but it was a very thinly populated place, less than 100,000 people mostly engaged in the fur trapping business. It was run differently, there was not the civic structures that the 13 colonies had. The surprise is really that all 13 colonies joined together really. It was not a universal position, so one might have expected some that stayed loyal, or at the least wanted to remain seperate from the USA. All had essentially been self governing.
Something people have to remember when talking about “these traitors” is that at this point in time in American history, These American settlers were not from the UK. America was already 4-5 generations in. That’s a large reason why there was so much rebellion going on. They were being forced to pay taxes from protection they themselves didn’t even need. It was their grand fathers and great grandfathers if I remember correctly
The Balearic Islands are in the Mediterrainean Sea and include Ibiza, Minorca and Majorca (all separate islands). This video was amazing. Always wanted to know more about the War of Independence. It's a shame King George had a change of heart - could have saved a lot of lives if he'd agreed to independence in the first place but it's good to know that he understood how the Americans were affected by the new laws. I'd love more reactions on this - thanks Connor
A huge problem was that the Colonists strongly believed that it was their God-given right as Anglo-Saxons to push westwards and conquer all of North America for the Empire, whilst, of course, we completely agreed with this, and didn't have an issue with it as a principle, the massive debt from the Seven Years' War and the suddenness of Pontiac's Rebellion kind of stunned our Parliament, which resulted in the Proclamation of 1763. We weren't ready to deal with another war with Spain when the Colonists reached what is now Texas, or the numerous inevitable Indian uprisings, all of which were expensive to deal with, until the economy had been strengthened again.
The British would say that we imposed taxes on the colonies to help pay back thecost of their protection from the French, not just a punitive tax to rob the colonies. Britain had a long history of wars with the French, most of which we won.
The American colonies was mostly settled by political and religious rebels who needed to leave Britain-so the idea they remained rebellious isn't a stretch.
Canada did not join the 13 colonies in North America against GT. Britain because they were loyalists to GT. Britain and the crown, with many loyalists in the 13 colonies fleeing to Canada. It was a tough job for GT. Britain to hold onto the 13 colonies when they rebelled, having to mobilise their troops against the French and the Spanish, as well as the rebellion, while the British were maintaining a global empire by deploying most of its forces elsewhere, and riddled in debt. Looking back I can’t help feeling those people living in the 13 colonies with British origins, fighting against us Brits, they’re own kind were traitors at the end of the day, and I’ll never forget that when I recall history between GT. Britain and America. It is what it is. Even today, it’s still a sore subject to talk about. But with a twist of irony, CANZUK may rise someday, and we might see a new Anglo-sphere rise from the ashes, just like the 13 colonies did, when they switched allegiances. #canzuk 🇨🇦🇦🇺🇳🇿🇬🇧
133 million is about 22 billion in today's money, but this is before fractional reserve and modern bond markets etc; it's a vast sum of money, probably more like a trillion today factoring that in. Debt wasn't a thing like it is today, so in terms of economic impact you have to think of it in those terms. Why was it the Americans? Dunno, who is James Somerset? That's why. Don't worry I'm sure the timing was entirely coincidental :) Also there's no suggestion, it is a fact, that war was arguably the first real world war, it was on almost every continent.
10:28 "What aren't other people [besides Americans] similarly mad about taxes?" - In a word, self-interest. Prior to the Seven Years War, American colonists had faced the dual existential threat of French and native attack, and those threats were sufficiently serious (and Americans still few enough in number) that some degree of British protection was worth paying for. But once the French military presence was turfed out of Canada, it increasingly became a mathematical equation: the American population had boomed from 422k in 1700 to 2.8m in 1770, they were the wealthiest colonies, they no longer had a powerful enemy on their doorstep that required imperial assistance to deal with, and they feared their taxes would be used in future to prop up poorer, needier colonies. In contrast, Caribbean colonists were still few and the French remained at large there, while Canada at this point was mostly French-speaking settlers who'd been given a fair deal by the Crown (by the standards of the time) when conquered, and felt there was more threat to their way of life from an American takeover of the continent than from a King and Parliament that had treated them with kid gloves so far. So Americans were the only ones for whom it made practical sense to object to higher taxes. TL;DR - Colonies cough up taxes for protection when they're small and poor and facing an external threat. As they get bigger, richer and the threats disappear, more and more colonists start weighing up the maths of going it alone.
France was still fermenting unrest in the Americas at the time, and yes george washington visited france at this time, so your conspiracy may have 1 leg to stand on.
I would argue that the Americans and French won the war and the British lost. But the 1783 treaty of Paris was won by the Americans and British, and lost by the French
Now I can't speak for al of us, eh, but we just did not have the weed up the ass. Sorry for that gross oversimplification. We just never felt the pressure from within that our neighbors to the south did. I believe (but can not prove) that the two Canadas (Upper and Lower) were a bit more mature colonies, having been established for longer that is. Lower Canada also knows as Quebec being the old French colony that Britain won in the Seven Years War. Yes there was some internal dissention in America at the time, but I am convinced (though can not pro9ve) that the French had a little more to do with things being so unstable since they had just lost a lot of stuff and were a tad but upset. Again, sorry for the oversimplification there, eh. Basically, it's complicated...lol... ..but we're all good right now. :)
two sides to every story. which is why you need to do more research and never from only one source. History is complicated and so much of it is been rewritten to suit political narratives in todays world. No matter what side of a war you are on, the other side are the bad guys from your point of view. Not in reality but never the less during the actual war, you cannot look at it from any other perspective. it's only after with hindsight in moments of peace and when more factual data is available can history have a better understanding on the course;.
The French remain - to some, at least - not "trustworthy", even today...!! The old "joke" about going abroad (to France, on holiday - for the scenery, at the very least...or the wine) and in the hotels... "If you want to keep your money safe - hide it under the soap !!" ...is perhaps, not widely repeated, yet is deep in the memories of those told it back in the '70's etc. It still may raise a laugh ...though not _now_ "pc" or whatever the current vernacular ?!! 😊🇬🇧🖖
I'm celebrating a $32k stock portfolio today. I started this journey with $4000 have invested on time and also with the right tearn now have time for my family and the life ahead of me
I have also been trading with her, profits are secured and over a 100 percent return on investment. She's such an amazing woman with good skills keeps me happy all week knowing I earn $15,000 extra income trading with her.
I don't really think that in 1700 whatever you can call them "Americans" European migrants maybe 😏 I guarantee that in 1700 whatever they wernt like "howdy partner" and "cowabunga dude" ...no, they were still paddies, jocks, limeys, crouts, frogs and spicks and a few vikings maybe all struggling to understand each other and get along...that never came to fruition but 300 years later on st Patrick's day many many people in America start talking with a weird Scottish Mrs Doutfire type accent and say "laddy" a lot 😄 ...those people are AMERICANS! freedom ooorah laddy!
1776 was the single most important event in American history: -
To the British it was a Tuesday
I hate Tuesdays
But it's further away from Monday's.Thats why hate Friday to close to Monday.
Pretty much
Nice reference.
Al Murray made the best remark. " The Yanks call it Independence ", while we British call it a lucky escape "..... Never a truer word said in gest.
I was going to just leave the word jest,(correct spelling for the context) then I remembered gaol. Now I have a crisis of coincidence……I think….😳
The problem is that he said it as a joke,but looking at America you get a sigh of relief.
Jest *
fact...@@stewedfishproductions7959
He also said in another stand up “They’ve never won one on their own” referring to Support from France and Netherlands in this war 😂
It makes me chuckle when I see Americans on social media saying to British people, we kicked your ass. I always think to myself. Their greatest victory is nothing but a mere footnote in British history 😂. And the colonists actually won very few battles. And it was public opinion back home, that didn't want to slaughter their own kin. And at the time, the colony wasn't financially important as India & the West Indies. If Britain really wanted the American colony & British people back home weren't opposed to slaughtering their cousins. They could have called in Regiments from India & fleets from the Indies, Europe, Africa & India to retake it.
After the french-indian war, started by George Washington, we were left with the entirety of America with absolutely no idea what to do with it and colonists complaining about paying taxes for the war they started 🤷
@@Trebor74 I don't blame them tbf. Everyone complains about taxes. The silly
@@OneTrueScotsman if India with 65% of the empires population and direct training by Britain couldn't do it alone then theres zero chance the 13 colonies ever could, and its doubtful the capital would ever move from England.
@@OneTrueScotsman ofc it was inevitable. just as it was for Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand etc. However it would have been a very different US.
@@Trebor74the Americans that were paying those taxes were not the ones who asked nor needed that protection dip shit. They weren’t even alive during the war at this time. Y’all seem to not understand that these “subjects” of the kings were not the same generation sent by the king. Americans were now 4-5 generations in, meaning most at the time have never even been to UK.
Were the rebels traitors? They took up arms against their lawful government and allied themselves with of all people, the French. Of course they were. It really is a bit rich for Americans to view it as anything else when you consider the view they take of the Confederacy doing exactly the same thing.
Exactly, and independence just happened to be pushed by the largest landowners in the 13 colonies. Personally, I've always taken issue with the "taxation without representation" refrain - yes, taxes in the 13 colonies were applied arbitrarily but the actual tax burden was significantly lower than that in the UK & Ireland at this time. Furthermore, the concept of universal suffrage wouldn't become vox pop. for another century so that argument has always struck me as revisionist.
I thought most Americans learned in school that Mel Gibson was the true liberator.
@@jamiegrant5955the only reason they were taxed really is because they wanted the British army over there defending against the French and the natives during the 7 years war.
You know very little to nothing about American history do you? At this point in time, these Americans were not from the UK. Hell, majority had never been. They were 4-5 generations in. These “traitors” at this point in time had no loyalty to the king. They never did. And the people the British were protecting the colonies for were not them. It was their grandfathers and great grandfathers
What you have to remember back in those days, Connor, is not just the values of strategical areas, but also trade areas . . . Britain back then had a rather large trading empire, and the new 13 colonies of America was not a huge portion of this at this time . . . All countries in the empire were paying taxes in some way, mainly for aiding their security, and also did very well trade-wise from it, too . . . be it troops on the ground for law and order, or the navy to combat pirates or adventurers attacking trade ships, etc . . . it was basically paying taxes to pay your way for this . . . But, America got a tad uppity about helping to pay towards those that were protecting them. (very different now in the US, as you know, as your Gov spends almost a trillion a year from your taxes on the very same issue!)
America (The 13 Col's) were still comparatively new though, and trade & taxes were still small - compared to other larger colonies - so when the issue of French & Spanish wars started up again during your own rebellion, protection and defending of the best tax and trading paying colonies, and their trade routes were naturally focused on far more . . . Take away the various wars and battles with those 2 however, and the British Gov could have sent anywhere up to 100,000 (+ or -)? , additional troops to bolster the forces already there . . . So in a way, without the French and Spanish causing extra problems at the time, your patriots may well not have succeeded at all . . . But, as they say, that's all back in the days of our past history now . . .
American taxes at the time of the revolution was 1/20th of the taxes the Brits paid.
@@Trebor74 Not to mention that the taxes that were rebeled against was in order to pay for troops which were dragged into various conflicts expanding the colonies...
Much like they were dragged into India by The East India Trading Company.
(Not to say stuff that happened there wasn't the empire's fault)
@@dzzope the french-indian war was started by George Washington.
Rich greedy businessmen who did not want to pay for British troops protecting them from the French and Indian allies.
... but then had to impose their own taxes to fund their own armies. And the "Rich greedy businessmen " still remain in power with their one-party state that poses as a two-party state.
In one way it's a lot more complicated than that but basically you're absolutely right. Not to mention that for better or worse the British then tried to protect (for their own reasons) the indigenous population while it suited their ends. And let's not forget that the USA later resisted British attempts to end the slave trade for a long time. All of which is in the past and these days we tend to forgive our US cousins all those kinds of adolescent outbursts. That said it would be good if they by now could get their heads around the idea of democracy not being based on a 'who has the most money wins' type of contest.
@@IainEPaterson Britain has a Parliament "while you can keep it" to quote Benjamin Franklin.
HOMICIDES IN THE USA - Not since 1776, just the numbers from 1969. Happy Independence America.
Since 1968, more than 1.5 million Americans have lost their lives in gun-related incidents. To put this into perspective, this surpasses the total number of service members killed in every war in U.S. history, which stands at approximately 1.2 million. The impact of gun violence has been devastating, with mass shootings like the Las Vegas massacre and other attacks becoming increasingly common.
In 2020, the homicide rate in the United States reached 7.8 per 100,000 people, the highest recorded since 1953. This increase was the largest year-over-year surge in the murder rate since at least 1954. While the numbers have fluctuated over the years, addressing violence remains a critical challenge for society. Then there are deaths by drug abuse etcetera. What about starting a War Of Freedom From Fentanyl and a ton of other assorted recreational drugs. Users are slaves to their habit, generally broke since the stuff is way over priced (American Capitalism) and risk heavy fines and jail. THAT'S FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE?
The emotional connection you feel Connor is interesting. We know a lot of your ancestry is from Ireland and Lancashire, and went to America after these events. If those ancestors fought, it would have been on the British side. How much of your ancestry was there at the time I wonder?
Not a bad video but still fails to address some important points that Americans aren't taught:
1) From a British point of view the American War of Independence was just a rebellion of some arsey colonists in the midst of it's ongoing on/off struggle with France and it's ally Spain. As such it was an annoying distraction from the real and much bigger war being fought all around the world, wherever these countries had colonies and trade routes.
2) France sent in agent provocateurs to whip up anti British sentiment and encourage the colonists to rebell. They also sent them funds and arms. The colonists were useful idiots in France's strategy.
The idea was either Britain would send forces from other parts of it's Empire. This would then leave them exposed to being nabbed by the French. Or if they didn't then the French would have an opportunity to win it's North America territories back.
3) Britain's best troops were needed elsewhere in the Empire. The ones stationed in N.America at the start of the rebellion were green or regiments that had been sent to recover from the fever islands of the Caribbean and were under strength. Either way British forces would be spread thin, especially after all the cuts.
N.America also had the worst officers, as there was little chance of promotion there. Instead it was the place to dump the drunks and incompetents, etc so the leadership was poor. By the time any half decent troops and officers were sent the British were very much on the back foot and the rebellion had grown much stronger than if it had been dealt with sensibly by competent officers at the start.
4) Compared to the rest of the Empire the N.American colonies had little value. India, the West Indies and East Indies brought in a huge amount of wealth. Places like South Africa and Gibralter had great strategic value.
In contrast the 13 colonies just had a bit of fur trading and timber. This was mainly pine rather than hardwoods like oak or teak which were needed for ship building, so of low value and only of use in cheap furniture.
Whilst Britain didn't want to lose the 13 colonies the reality was if something had to be sacrificed they were far less valuable than other parts of the empire and because they covered such a large area would need much greater forces to protect.
The British government has given back 95% of its empire and of course, America would have been given its independence even if they didn't fight for it. I watched a similar video on TH-cam which concluded that America, had they waited 100 years or so, would have been granted independence and as slavery was already illegal at that time, the abolishment of slavery in the US would have taken place waaaaaaay earlier. Us Brits might not be everyone's cup of tea but we recognise our own mistakes and have tried to make amends where possible. Modern Britain is a shell of what it once was. But at least we aren't French 🤣
😮 Connor... I thought you studied History in Uni (College) ? What _exactly_ did you study - what _era/s_ and _whose_ histories ? Surely, your own (America's ?) From the begining of "The Thirteen Colonies" and the "War of Independence" at least, and up to, (maybe) The 1930's "Great Depression" / "Prohibition" or, what, please ? I'm curious. Thanks. 🤔🇬🇧🖖
Don't forget Connor, the 13 colonies were British colonies, the people were British citizens, the British Army were there to protect the colonies and stop the migration of people into the Indian territories as per the Agreements made with the different tribes at the time, Britain had no intention of expanding the colonies and treaties and agreements were in place to protect both the Native lands and the colonies, those agreements were destroyed when you gained independence, America gaining its independence lead directly to the Native genocide nothing to do with the British even though we still get blamed........... so yeah, they were traitors.
Britain was parliamentary, George was no tyrant
Another aspect often overlooked:- The Patriot Movement started in Parliament back in 1725. At first they just took a stand against corruption, then later developed new ideas of reforming democracy. Although they did not want to loose the colonies, they believed that all Englishmen including American ones, had the democratic right to choose their own governance. My home town of Rotherham South Yorkshire has a monument to the Boston Tea Party named Boston Castle. Not far away at Parlington Hall is a Victory Arch built in 1783 to celebrate American Liberty. Our local politicians such as Lords Effingham and Rockingham have American Cities, Counties and even Warships named for them. These men were not regarded as traitors, but simply formed the Whig opposition in Parliament. In 1783 Lord Rockingham was invited to become Prime Minister, he agreed on the condition that he be allowed to set America free!
The Patriot Party later renamed themselves the Liberal Party and so still exist in parliament to this day.
Yeah, I don't think we even touched on America back in school (in the 60s) and that included O Level stuff. It was too modern to be 'History' !
The cannon would have bits on it like that to make it easier to carry. Instead of wheeling the cannon assembled to another location. We would disassemble it and quickly move the cannon to some other location. And then reassemble it . Ready for use once again. We would practice this in the navy. It would be called the gun run . I was in charge of the little pin used to hold the wheel on 😂. I was very important 😂
just think,if those yanks had just paid the tax then you would have an english accent and really nice grass 😁🤣🤣🤣
and don't leave out cheap or free healthcare, better and less toxic fresher foods at lower prices AND lower overall taxation. Wonder what would have happened without the critical help of the French navy and their blockade of a few British ships.
@@aidencox790 Except for the fact that the healthcare in the UK is shite, taxes are lower in some states, you're right about the food but also forget that the UK is ruled tyrannically and one of the most unfree and crime ridden places in Europe, with the most arrogant annoying leftists in the Western World.
George Washington was a commissioned officer in His majesty’s armed forces during the Native American wars prior to the Revolutionary War and so will have sworn an oath of allegiance to the King his heirs and successors this oath is binding for life. I have sworn it myself twice. In this era it was what determined a persons character and was not sworn lightly. The Irish Republican Brotherhood refused to swear allegiance as did the Irish republicans in more recent times it means your honour is at stake. I can’t respect an oath breaker.
Patriots or greedy traitors depends on one's point of view . From this account it seems that reason should have prevailed before open hostilities and French / Spanish opportunism played a part . In the end it wasn't deemed worth the effort and resources to finish the war .Certainly the Colonies would have developed differently , and the native Americans would have fared better if we had .
Part of the treaty was America promised to abide by the treaties wed made with the natives. So no trail of tears,etc,etc
Cornwallis had a lot of enemies at Horseguards, who controlled his supplies-that's how he failed.
I strongly doubt you fully paid the French back- you refused to return their bullion from Fort Knox, in the arly 1930's, which is why you have such poor relations with France.
Majorca and Mallorca are the same island with diffferent spellings. Minorca and Menorca are the same island with different spellings.
Finally ive been waitin
The overwhelming majority of British people neither know nor particularly care about the revolutionary wars. Its assigned an importance by Americans completely out of proportion to its actual significance. Theres been many, many many much bigger wars over here for us to deal with.
There was some sympathy back home. There is a folly on a hill near Rotherham called Boston Castle which was built as a sort of anti-war protest by an earl who resigned his commission in the army in protest at the war.
Don't for get at the same time England was trying to end the slave trade at the same time as this it is one thing thay have forgotten to mention in this all he is saying is correct, but we but the trying to end the slave trade by paying the navy and compensation to slave owners which almost hit 30 million which we finished paying for in 2015
It's all George's fault. You decide which one though.
Just think how big the British Empire would have been if the American Colonies had not revolted. Maybe WWI would have never started, as Britain would have had a far superior army at its disposal.
Why did the Americans not help the French in the Napoleonic Wars then?
No tax from America ever came to Britain, for a good explanation of this period, see The Last King of America by Andrew Roberts who was given permission by Queen Elizabeth to access the Royal Documents at Windsor Castle
From what I remember the 13 colonies tried to get Quebec into the war but as they were french citizens recently conquered they were in no rush to join another war which they saw as nothing to do with them
UK here. May I say never apologise if you do not know something. I watch this channel because I like your open honesty.
I studied the American civil and the Napoleonic wars especially the peninsular campaign. I get tons wrong because the subject is so massive. You can write a book on a single battle. Or a book on the politics that led to the battle. So with that thanks for this channel.
Pretty much before the 7 years war the Americans were barely taxed at all, and when taxed it was at a much lower rate than the brits of the mainland. What changed after the 7 years war was essentially that Great Britain remembered her colonies existed. As for why Canada didn't rise up, most likely cause the local elite decided to not go against the crown. Add that to the fact that after the american revolution most american loyalists fled to Canada, and you have a good summary of Canadian loyalty to the king
by american loyalists you mean english men from england not americans lol
and yeah after the revolution all the english left america
@jensonthebastard actually I mean the settlers that remained loyal to the crown. Those that rebelled were also brits before the revolution. The only genuine Americans were the natives
@@spirosgreek1171 the thing about the american revolution is its all a complete work of fiction and myth the only facts are that the english people left america
Connor its because Canadians are too polite to rebel !!!
As a Brit who lives near Gibraltar, I love the shout out Griff makes to the Great Siege of Gibraltar from 1779 - 1783. I've visited Gibraltar many times since moving here and the siege is a huge moment of pride in Gibraltarian history
10:35 Short answer: The Hudson Bay Company
Explanation: Unlike the 13 Colonies which were "incorporated" as colonial settlements of the crown, with some kind of semblance of local government rule (only superseded by the Crown), much of the territories in the English (later British) Empire at the time were not formally incorporated and instead settled by people who worked for the many monopoly crown corporations that conducted day-to-day business in these territories: Examples include the Muscovy Company in Russia, the "well-known" East-India Company on the Indian Subcontinent, and in Canada much of the land was controlled by The Hudson Bay Company, which was a monopoly in fur trade and settlers in these lands were basically "company" colonists. The Acts passed by London really didn't apply to Canada at the time since crown corporations like the Hudson Bay Company were very autonomous and were left to "govern" themselves and by that: finding more ways to make money for the English crown in exchange for exemptions from English laws. Once these companies began to collapse in the mid 19th century things did change, but by then America was in the middle of its "Manifest Destiny" and "Civil War" phases.
I don't remember if I gave you this reference, Connor, but it definitely is a "must see": "How the USA Colonized the USA" by the excellent Johnny Harris (on YT)
I wonder if they teach that in US schools?
They actually do tho they tell how we fought and killed them on their land all through school
The French in Canada supported the British during the war . Which was a big help.
sounds like the whole thing could have been avoided with both sides just communicating better and being reasonable lol. And then the french after losing loved the chance to help the Americans. but then lead to them being severely broke and causing the french revolution so guess we won in the end lol.
I think Canada was very different from the American colonies at the time. Not only was the French Quebec factor, but it was a very thinly populated place, less than 100,000 people mostly engaged in the fur trapping business. It was run differently, there was not the civic structures that the 13 colonies had. The surprise is really that all 13 colonies joined together really. It was not a universal position, so one might have expected some that stayed loyal, or at the least wanted to remain seperate from the USA. All had essentially been self governing.
The knot things are to make them easier to carry, for some interesting UK stuff have a look at field gun races
Mallorca & Menorca are different islands but they are very close to each other.
Something people have to remember when talking about “these traitors” is that at this point in time in American history, These American settlers were not from the UK. America was already 4-5 generations in. That’s a large reason why there was so much rebellion going on. They were being forced to pay taxes from protection they themselves didn’t even need. It was their grand fathers and great grandfathers if I remember correctly
Also the British were moving to ending slavery, which they did in1809
The Balearic Islands are in the Mediterrainean Sea and include Ibiza, Minorca and Majorca (all separate islands). This video was amazing. Always wanted to know more about the War of Independence. It's a shame King George had a change of heart - could have saved a lot of lives if he'd agreed to independence in the first place but it's good to know that he understood how the Americans were affected by the new laws. I'd love more reactions on this - thanks Connor
A huge problem was that the Colonists strongly believed that it was their God-given right as Anglo-Saxons to push westwards and conquer all of North America for the Empire, whilst, of course, we completely agreed with this, and didn't have an issue with it as a principle, the massive debt from the Seven Years' War and the suddenness of Pontiac's Rebellion kind of stunned our Parliament, which resulted in the Proclamation of 1763.
We weren't ready to deal with another war with Spain when the Colonists reached what is now Texas, or the numerous inevitable Indian uprisings, all of which were expensive to deal with, until the economy had been strengthened again.
It was Canadians loyalty to the King that made them stay British. The majesty of Royalty is a big pull for the masses.
The British would say that we imposed taxes on the colonies to help pay back thecost of their protection from the French, not just a punitive tax to rob the colonies. Britain had a long history of wars with the French, most of which we won.
Yes Washington started that domino effect, I think.
Actually no, Menorca and Mallorca are two different islands that are part off the Balearic Islands.
The American colonies was mostly settled by political and religious rebels who needed to leave Britain-so the idea they remained rebellious isn't a stretch.
Now,imagine if jan 6th(or whatever the date was) was successful and how that would be taught,or thought about.
Canada did not join the 13 colonies in North America against GT. Britain because they were loyalists to GT. Britain and the crown, with many loyalists in the 13 colonies fleeing to Canada. It was a tough job for GT. Britain to hold onto the 13 colonies when they rebelled, having to mobilise their troops against the French and the Spanish, as well as the rebellion, while the British were maintaining a global empire by deploying most of its forces elsewhere, and riddled in debt. Looking back I can’t help feeling those people living in the 13 colonies with British origins, fighting against us Brits, they’re own kind were traitors at the end of the day, and I’ll never forget that when I recall history between GT. Britain and America. It is what it is. Even today, it’s still a sore subject to talk about. But with a twist of irony, CANZUK may rise someday, and we might see a new Anglo-sphere rise from the ashes, just like the 13 colonies did, when they switched allegiances. #canzuk 🇨🇦🇦🇺🇳🇿🇬🇧
Don't miss out on Life and creating history for oneself
Yes
I have always liked that Johnny Cash song 'The Road to Kaintuck.' which I assume became Kentucky?
133 million is about 22 billion in today's money, but this is before fractional reserve and modern bond markets etc; it's a vast sum of money, probably more like a trillion today factoring that in. Debt wasn't a thing like it is today, so in terms of economic impact you have to think of it in those terms.
Why was it the Americans? Dunno, who is James Somerset? That's why. Don't worry I'm sure the timing was entirely coincidental :)
Also there's no suggestion, it is a fact, that war was arguably the first real world war, it was on almost every continent.
Connor please take your medication for your ADHD and refrain from stopping the video ever 10 seconds.
Chance of that happening is 0%
100%, The colonists expansionism made the empire spend large military costs that the colonies didn't want to pay for...
10:28 "What aren't other people [besides Americans] similarly mad about taxes?" - In a word, self-interest. Prior to the Seven Years War, American colonists had faced the dual existential threat of French and native attack, and those threats were sufficiently serious (and Americans still few enough in number) that some degree of British protection was worth paying for. But once the French military presence was turfed out of Canada, it increasingly became a mathematical equation: the American population had boomed from 422k in 1700 to 2.8m in 1770, they were the wealthiest colonies, they no longer had a powerful enemy on their doorstep that required imperial assistance to deal with, and they feared their taxes would be used in future to prop up poorer, needier colonies. In contrast, Caribbean colonists were still few and the French remained at large there, while Canada at this point was mostly French-speaking settlers who'd been given a fair deal by the Crown (by the standards of the time) when conquered, and felt there was more threat to their way of life from an American takeover of the continent than from a King and Parliament that had treated them with kid gloves so far. So Americans were the only ones for whom it made practical sense to object to higher taxes.
TL;DR - Colonies cough up taxes for protection when they're small and poor and facing an external threat. As they get bigger, richer and the threats disappear, more and more colonists start weighing up the maths of going it alone.
The problem back they should of taxed Americans from the start instead of letting Americans have tax free goods
And lived happily ever after you sure about that. Peace out.
France was still fermenting unrest in the Americas at the time, and yes george washington visited france at this time, so your conspiracy may have 1 leg to stand on.
I would argue that the Americans and French won the war and the British lost. But the 1783 treaty of Paris was won by the Americans and British, and lost by the French
No, won by the Freemasonry.
I have not seen one second of this, but I am predicting some....disinclination towards the British side from an American.
Oh look, Griff was biased. hardly surprising.
Now I can't speak for al of us, eh, but we just did not have the weed up the ass. Sorry for that gross oversimplification. We just never felt the pressure from within that our neighbors to the south did. I believe (but can not prove) that the two Canadas (Upper and Lower) were a bit more mature colonies, having been established for longer that is. Lower Canada also knows as Quebec being the old French colony that Britain won in the Seven Years War.
Yes there was some internal dissention in America at the time, but I am convinced (though can not pro9ve) that the French had a little more to do with things being so unstable since they had just lost a lot of stuff and were a tad but upset. Again, sorry for the oversimplification there, eh.
Basically, it's complicated...lol...
..but we're all good right now. :)
Told you
Watch Britain ended slavery all the questions you asked are answered within it
This is more of a British perspective with an American narrative
two sides to every story. which is why you need to do more research and never from only one source. History is complicated and so much of it is been rewritten to suit political narratives in todays world.
No matter what side of a war you are on, the other side are the bad guys from your point of view. Not in reality but never the less during the actual war, you cannot look at it from any other perspective. it's only after with hindsight in moments of peace and when more factual data is available can history have a better understanding on the course;.
It's the French😡🏴
The French remain - to some, at least - not "trustworthy", even today...!!
The old "joke" about going abroad (to France, on holiday - for the scenery, at the very least...or the wine) and in the hotels... "If you want to keep your money safe - hide it under the soap !!" ...is perhaps, not widely repeated, yet is deep in the memories of those told it back in the '70's etc. It still may raise a laugh ...though not _now_ "pc" or whatever the current vernacular ?!! 😊🇬🇧🖖
Duh. But I don't want to be a good boy. Got too much Scottish, Irish and Welsh in me veins ;-)
No you didn’t pay back the French and that lead to the French Revolution
I'm celebrating a $32k stock portfolio today. I started this journey with $4000 have invested on time and also with the right tearn now have time for my family and the life ahead of me
please how, am still a newbie on investment trading
All you need as a beginner to make good profit from Bitcoin is a professional trader who will trade on your behalf else you may make losses
ever since i came across bitcoin trader Marie Brandon my life have totally changed. yours can also change it's just a matter of commitment and focus
I have heard a lot about investment with Marie Brandon and how good she is, please how safe are the profits?
I have also been trading with her, profits are secured and over a 100 percent return on investment. She's such an amazing woman with good skills keeps me happy all week knowing I earn $15,000 extra income trading with her.
I don't really think that in 1700 whatever you can call them "Americans" European migrants maybe 😏 I guarantee that in 1700 whatever they wernt like "howdy partner" and "cowabunga dude" ...no, they were still paddies, jocks, limeys, crouts, frogs and spicks and a few vikings maybe all struggling to understand each other and get along...that never came to fruition but 300 years later on st Patrick's day many many people in America start talking with a weird Scottish Mrs Doutfire type accent and say "laddy" a lot 😄 ...those people are AMERICANS! freedom ooorah laddy!