As an American I can say you’ve done a great job here. Unfortunately most Americans are taught a children’s version of these events, reflected in many of the comments here. They never hear about the founders’ land speculating, their desire to drive out the Indians and take the West, their plans to conquer Canada, the New England merchants’ desire to take control of the Caribbean, and to expel all European powers from the entire hemisphere. Except for the conquest of Canada (there were two unsuccessful invasions), eventually all this just “happened”.
You say that and yet Tom makes the point in the very beginning of the podcast that in the UK the American Revolution is NOT taught in schools at all. I can tell you as a "mature" American once upon a time American kids were taught factual history of the founding of the country. But I grew up in the 60s and 70s. I raised my kids with the historical references and resources I was taught they are now in their 30s and have their own children to which I also offer the educational resources I was taught. I collect old text books from that era to teach my grandkids. However because of REVISIONISM in government schools a LOT of subjects are either changed so as not to "offend" or NOT taught at all. Including math and science. 🤨🤨 And FYI George Washington did NOT have wooden teeth they were made of Ivory and they are or were on display at his home in Mount Vernon.
Quit being a British cuck. The English viewed the colonists as “other” & the 13 mainland colonies themselves as a financial burden instead the endless supply of resources & opportunities that the colonists knew it was. And even these geniuses consider this “sensible”. Had we pushed out the British Canadians like we did the Spanish, we could have been fully rid of all of these horrific Eurocentric ideologies that eventually came along & currently wouldn’t have to be asking idiotic questions like “what is a woman” from a movement that wanted to make the age of consent 13. Britain is a dead empire & European culture is eating itself. Just dead weight that needs to be cut loose. How long do we need to pay for their military budgets & intercede in their idiotic regional conflicts while being spat upon & insulted by their spineless gelatinous populaces? What possible use does Europe serve any American?
As an immigrant from the UK.in 1970s and had just finish my Service in the British Army am ashamed to say that l knew more about the Roman Legions in Britannia in the first Century AD( Chester Legio xx) than the British Army during The Revolutionary War.
As an avid history buff, imagine excitement on hearing two of Britain's foremost historians were embarking on a wide-ranging podcast! Upon first listening, imagine my surprise at the interspersed purile 70s schoolboy humour! Naturally I was hooked and delighted!
Bostonian here. One of the great sources of frustration for our local rum industry, and for consumers in general, was the British prohibition on molasses, used to make rum, from Spanish Cuba and Puerto Rico, and from French Sainte-Domingue (later Haiti). It was more readily available, and far cheaper, than what was available from producers in British Jamaica and Barbados, which the English nevertheless insisted Americans use as sources for sugar products. It gave rise to smuggling, and made reduction of sugar taxes seem irrelevant to Americans in that it didn't address the issue of American access to cheap sugar. The prohibition was also seen as benefiting wealthy producers and merchants at the expense of the American public.
Do you reckon that British people don't know about the American War for Independence not because it was a defeat at the hands of the Americans, but because it was a defeat at the hands of the vile French?
I Love listening to the rich articulate voice of Professor Adam Smith, Tom and Dominic picked the right man for this interesting series on the American Revolution. My only gripe being English myself is to not hear an American historians view or account, apart from that, it's brilliant.
@@joeygears5388 do you though? Maybe you get it via pop culture or Americans online all the time. That's not necessarily the same as getting it direct from an American historian obviously.
“Taxation without representation” is a phrase that is taught to every child as the cause of American Revolution. It is interesting to hear why taxes were needed, from the British perspective. But it was the lack of representation we are taught was the issue (not that taxes were likely to be well received regardless).
It is astonishing that despite over a century of friendship the British still don't understand the American perspective on the American Revolutionary War. From the American point of view, the major causes of the war were taxation without representation in Parliament, the restriction on trade in the thirteen colonies by the British colonial mercantilist system, and the restriction on individual rights that the colonists rightfully believed was due to them under British law, as "the absolute rights of every Englishman". Far from refusing to negotiate, the First Continental Congress issued a Petition to the King in October of 1774 in response to the Intolerable Acts. Even as late as July 1775, the Second Continental Congress was still trying to avoid war, they issued the Olive Branch Petition. These entreaties were rebuffed. In fact, the British refused to even receive the Olive Branch Petition when it arrived at Court in August 1775. Later that week, the King issued the Proclamation of Rebellion. This occurred a year before the Declaration of Independence and when hostilities had only broken out in one colony: Massachusetts. Despite this, the Proclamation declared all the North American colonies in rebellion. In appealing to the King, the Continental Congress was not trying to subvert Parliament as "Royalists". The American Revolutionary leaders were not "Tories". In fact, they saw themselves carrying on the Whig and Liberal tradition of the 17th Century in opposition to a Tory government of Lord North in Parliament. (This is where the monikers "Patriots" and "Tories" comes from. In the thirteen colonies supporters of Independence were referred to as "Patriots" and supporters of loyalty to the crown were called "Tories".) The Continental Congress appealed to the King because the King was the sovereign in whose name Parliament acted; the Colonies were founded upon royal charters and not acts of Parliament; the King was the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces being quartered in the colonies; Parliament had no legitimate claim over the colonies since the colonies had no representation in Parliament; and because English Law had a longstanding tradition of subjects being able to petition the King as a judicial court for redress of grievances and to seek relief from unjust laws which infringed on their rights. All of these entreaties and redresses were rebuffed by the British government with no good faith effort to negotiate. The Proclamation of Rebellion undermined moderates in the Continental Congress that were still seeking a peaceful resolution. Frankly, the root cause underlying the injuries above and the lack of response to American attempts at negotiations was British Imperialism, a refusal to treat British subjects living in the colonies as equals with equal rights under the law and equal representation in Parliament.
Nicely put! It's a shame that English/British attitudes of the ruling class is to ignore popular petitions from the downtrodden until pushed to an absolute limit. By that time, it's too late. What might have worked in England (send in the militia and cut down the mob) couldn't work in the 13 colonies.
Glad you saved me from having to type a shittier version of that. Ultimately war was unavoidable because the issue was Parlament itself; either let the colonies in or let them have our own under the King. Either solution would greatly alter the established power dynamic and potentially thereafter the economic dynamic that was enriching London.
No taxation without representation is a catchy slogan and has a lot to be said for it, but many of the movers of the revolution wanted no taxation under any circumstances. A good few were active smugglers.
@billythedog-309 It is more than a slogan. It is a fact. The British denied Americans representation in Parliament and ignored the acts of the Colonial Assemblies and the rulings American courts, even when they favored British interests. (See, the acquittals of most of the Boston Massacre soldiers) Nor did Parliament acknowledge even devolved powers to colonial assemblies as it does now with the national assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The conduct of the British administrations towards the American colonies from 1763 to 1783 was tyranny. Nor would any British subject in UK today suffer similar treatment as they require the American colonials to have endured.
@@Desert-Father lf you read my comment you would notice l acknowledge that the slogan has merit, but you then think that answers the main point - that many of the men behind the revolution objected to tax whether justified or not.
So many fundamental mistakes. "Taxation without representation is tyranny." Americans had taxed themselves before Parliament did, through their own representative bodies. What they objected to weren't the Duties and Taxes, but that it was being imposed without consent. Americans had also defended themselves from the French and Indians, and others, since the beginning of settlement. The sending of troops to America by Britain wasn't seen as being necessary for defense, but as a means for the "Sovereign" Parliament, which had no representation from America, to impose its dictates by on Englishmen by force - just as Charles I did. If the British government has simply allocated representation to Americans in Parliament, there would have been no Revolution. In fact, as all Americans understood at the time, the population of Englishmen in America was the largest body of Englishmen who had no representation in Parliament in the entire Empire. Even the planters in Jamaica and Barbados had, for the most part, representation in Parliament as they nearly always owned estates in Britain as well. And, also, purchasing membership in The Rest Is History Club *is* taxed in America.
What the British didn't understand was that they left the colonists to regress into far more savage mentality and suddenly decided to civilize them. By then there was a cultural disconnect across the Atlantic. The British were thinking of making peace with the natives and even abolish slavery. But the colonists were by then confident enough to ask for more. They had suffered and now that Ohio was almost in their grasp thought that London was holding them back. They wanted more and didn't care for natives and certainly didn't want to give up slavery. The more immigrants arrived there was more pressure to take over more land and implement what the British had done in the West Indies. They had more of a warrior attitude than the gentry in London. Enlightenment stuff was as usual excuse to demand for freedom or in other words to be left alone to do what they wanted instead of being told what to do by a bunch of old men across and ocean. George Washington and the rest who has enslaved Africans under the British Flag now wanted their own. You see that all throughout history with expats during the age colonialism. They are sent into the heart of darkness on behalf of their masters and once they embrace darkness they no longer want to listen to their comfortable masters. This reminds me of scene in Apocalypse Now with the French expats who have nothing to return to in France and just want to keep what they fought for. The same was true of Rhodesia and South Africa. After they had climatized to the savagery, they were different with different values. This is that same thing as with the third world wanting to burn fossil fuel but being told not to do so by Westerners who had built their progress on the same fossil fuel that they were now being denied by the same people who started climate change. As usual illogical but understandable.
Franklin was asked "now you've won what will become of the revolution? Replied the revolution was over 20 years ago. That galvanizing is intersting if true
Perhaps someone can straighten me out on this obscure question. I've asked about it elsewhere on TH-cam but couldn't get a definitive answer. A long time ago I read somewhere - but I can't remember where - that as Britain's military situation worsened and the expense of the war kept growing, Lord North (the Prime Minister) drew up a secret plan to end hostilities on advantageous terms to Britain. It would, he believed, allow the British to escape defeat and even come out ahead. His plan was firstly to face the fact that New England and the mid-Atlantic colonies were lost. There was no point pretending otherwise. But South Carolina and Georgia - where Loyalist sentiment was strong - were far from lost. These colonies were major producers of commodities which Britain valued: tobacco, cotton, indigo and rice. He therefore planned to recommend to George III that Britain offer all the colonies independence except South Carolina and Georgia. Plus Britain would retain Manhattan - a strong Loyalist enclave - as a sort of prestige possession. However, Lord North was strongly advised against presenting this plan to the king. The monarch, his advisers warned, would never accept a piecemeal arrangement. It had to be all or nothing. So he gave up on the idea. Does this ring a bell with anyone? Or is my memory playing tricks?
I don't understand how the desire by American colonialists to have political representation in parliament was ignroed in this podcast. Maybe the next episode? This is huge.
@billythedog-309 As they should. It is no mere pretext. The power to tax is the power to destroy. A government that acts without the people's consent, especially on such grave matters, is tyrannical. The British may be content to live as subjects of a king. The Americans are not.
@@IreliAmBadwell, maybe not. Ww1 and 2 may not have happened. A lot may be for the better. The British honestly were saints compared to most empires. Yes unfair taxes and at times authoritarian but all in all not very opessivecompared to almost every other empire ever. Also america may never expand to the pacific in that scenario so, I like this one better lol
@@l01ner. The Irish victims narrative is pretty much a 20th century nationalist invention. Have a look at Dublin and all the rail systems, schools ect - yes the catholic Irish were discriminated against but it really wasn’t like how post independence propaganda makes out.
If the Americans did not have representation in parliament, then they were right to disobey it. They were subjects of King George but they were not parliamentary constituents, so I think you're being unfair to present them as being absurd in their royalism and for being disdainful of parliament.
I don't know if you're American. If you are, you should know that socialism has so inveigled itself into the European mindset over the last hundred years that, even with amongst who are considered right wing, the basic benevolence of government is taken for granted. This is really why English people don't "get" the American Revolution. In this culture, the fact that you're not represented by government is not nearly as important as the government "doing things" for you.
@Dabhach1 Well I wouldn't say it's socialist per say, Europe has had top down strong state systems for hundreds of years. It's more of a new world vs old world mentality.
The colonies petitioned the king because parliament refused to grant them representation. Supremacy of parliament when said parliament refuses to represent them is fairly nonsensical. And there was a plan to subjegate the colonists, it was being actively carried out. They weren't being represented and were having laws imposed upon them without any means for them to consent. I don't get why this is such difficult item to grasp. That is subjugation.
What subjegation was being carried out? Paying tax to fund the military security for the colonies and securing further expansion? The colonists were already reaping the benefits of being part of the British empire while citizens in the metropol were funding it. It was basically parliment asking them to kick in for providing security and military support both for expansion and for the French Indian war which had been funded by taxpayers in Britain by, in part, paying the stamp tax, all parliament did was implement the same tax in the colonies. Without British military help, the colonists would have been destroyed and subjegated by the French and their native allies. They had appealed for help which the mother country gave. In fact no new taxes were created specifically for the colonies, they were the same ones as the mother country and they simply became more diligant in collecting them due to the cost of the seven years war. It couldnt have been about representation as after eliminating everyone under the age of 21, all slaves and women, most Jews and Catholics, plus those men too poor to be freeholders, the colonial electorate consisted of perhaps only 10 percent to 20 percent of the total population. Also petitioning the King made no difference. In Britain the elected body had supremacy over the crown after the glorious revolution, the King could not overide parliamentary acts, to do so would have caused another constitutional crisis. I dont know how you could even have had parliamentary representation in the colonies, no other colonies had any and they were represented by the colonial secretary, I suppose you could have had people living in Britain permanently corresponding with the colonies like an ambassador but then parliament would then have felt justified in taxing them to the same level as British citizens on the mainland at the time which was waaaay higher than what they were being asked to do so the situation would probably have turned out the same.
@@endlessnameless6628 You make some really important points about why the British felt the colonies should pay towards their own security. It's natural for white Americans to resist the idea that their forebearers had underhand motives for wanting to relinquish the British Empire but once you realise that you bear no responsibility for their actions, or in fact, anyone else's actions but your own, it's easier to look upon it more objectively. I do the same about the British Empire: rich, powerful and entitled people were carving the world up and exploiting the indigenous populations and natural recourses. Twas ever thus and is still happening now. There is no value in trying to defend their actions.
It's difficult to argue the richest of the colonists were inherently right when they were so keen on subjugating others (of other classes) without any means for them to consent or have representation.
I would love to hear these great historians dig into a thesis I came upon while I was visiting Williamsburg, Virginia. In a bookstore I came across a book titled “slave nation“ that says that the protection of slavery was a big motive for the revolutionaries. in 1772 a British judge declared slavery contrary to English common law effectively abolishing slavery in England. The burning question at that point became to what extent that would be applied to the colonies, which it eventually was an 1831. The Book doesn’t come up with much of a smoking gun as far as it’s main thesis is concerned, but in the time since I’ve read it, I have basically become convinced of its truth. In this conversation, the historians discuss the fact that the taxation the colonist faced really wasn’t significant. They note taxation doesn’t make much of a motive to separate from England. The slavery issue fits better, and might be taken to explain the paranoid language of the declaration of independence.
Were the colonists anti-Parliament? Or were they only asking for direct representation in Parliament? Their problem with Parliament, it's my understanding, was that they had no members in it.
A New England born and raised hero of the French and Indian War called Robert Rogers was the most famously lauded American born and raised military figure prior to the Revolution. His story would make a great discussion between you both
In the historical context is it accurate that all three contributors use England and Britain, the English and British as though they are one and the same thing?
Its nice to actually hear the historical intricacies and nuance of the history of the American revolution rather than the idealistic fairytale that always seems to get retold.
"The key to the American Revolution is the authority of Parliament vis a vis the independence of the colonies." Oh please -- you think the fact that the colonists were sending very polite letters of petition to the king meant that they didn't understand the role of parliament and they were expecting the king to over rule parliament? Yeah, super smart guys like Jefferson, Patrick Henry , and Adams (all of whom were lawyers) were just too ignorant to know this. You know what the key is? The deep and profound love of liberty which the patriots expressed in all they said and did and which still inspires Americans today in a way which I honestly believe the British simply do not understand. Where I live in Connecticut, revolutionary war flags can be seen flying from front porches everywhere. "Live free or die" is on the license plate of every car in New Hampshire. The mascot of my son's university in Massachusetts is the "minute man" the farmer ready to defend freedom on a minute's notice. You can't understand America until you understand this.
@@bretttheroux8040 I think they were referring to the average British citizen. Professor Adam Smith, like @datdavid mentions, is an Oxford professor. He should know these things.
The American revolution depending on what teacher you get in high school can be very different. It is very strange because I switched Teachers halfway through my sophomore year and the view of the American revolution was like a 180°. One guy was super patriotic and ra ra america was wronged and rising on the world vs a guy who said the american revolution happened because Britain was transitioning to a world empire and was still on the learning curve. And that the revolution by modern standards was not justifiable
Yes the American War of Independence isn't much known about here in the UK, I had come across it in boyhood, but even though I did A Level History I had never heard of the War of 1812 until I was into my 20s (1980s). You'd have thought burning down the White House would have been part of our 'national imagination' rather than a forgotten incident.
Whitehall couldn’t understand the Americans complaints as they were lowly taxed and had everything they wanted so why need more land. This from Britain expanding still around the world, and is this showing the class stay in your lane culture of English?
Well the point is that the only reason the colonists were able to even think about expanding was that British forces had won the 7 years war securing the colonies at the expense of the British tax payer who funded the whole thing and had put a massive strain on the British economy.Then the colonies wanted both protection from and ability to expand into Indian land which would require more security provided by British military forces costing even more money yet when asked to fund said security through the stamp act ( a tax that British tax payers had been paying since the late 1600's) they didnt want to hence it all starts to unravel.
But didn’t those children who went out into hostile territories deserve and were owed less tax than in England which had all the established government provisions which the Americans created at great cost?
It sounds to me like most of the problem here was a breakdown of communication, which isn't surprising considering the distances involved, and the length of time the societies had been separated. When it comes to allocating blame for what happened, Britain can only be blamed for poor tactics and some insensitivity in its' handling of the colonies. The Americans however can be blamed for wanting their cake and eating it. If they'd been given de facto Independence under the Crown they'd have expected to pay no tax to the Crown, but if they ever needed defending they'd have expected Britain to pay with money and lives to defend them. We still get this sort of thing nowadays. Independence movements in Scotland and Wales in the UK, think they can become Independent, whilst despite having been over represented in the Parliament which has borrowed it all, refusing to take their share of the UK National Debt with them, and even continue to receive state pensions from the English taxpayer and have their banks and bank deposits underwritten by the Bank of England. Needless to say they'd expect to be defended, whilst spending nothing on their own on defence. Even now the UK spends FAR more in Wales and Scotland (in the case of Wales double) the amount it collects from them in tax, but the nationalists still complain they're not getting even more. There's also controversy going on at the moment about the Wales and Scottish Government's disastrous handling of Covid. Despite the fact that they have total devolved responsibility for public health, their excuse is that they didn't receive 'leadership' from the UK. In this respect the Scottish Nationalists even sometimes refer to England 'as the lead nation'. This is exactly what was happening in the Colonies, but much more so. There'd have bound to be fracture eventually. The best thing to have done would have given them total Independence under the Crown, and if they ever needed defending tell them we want cash up front. On the other hand there was a happy outcome for Great Britain from the War of Independence. France's meddling in it bankrupted them and largely caused the French Revolution, which ruined France. Britain retained all our valuable trading links with the USA whilst France gained nothing and soon ended up with no possessions at all in North America.
You talk about the Crown but as the podcast mentions the Crown had no power as constitutional monarch - Parliament is the true villain in the story (from the American perspective)
Excellent stream. Seems to me the most fundamental error was Britain’s ‘neglect”of sorts of the colonies in the previous decades. American propagandists were also extremely effective.
Bottom line the Colonies did not need England as much as the UK needed to tax,also freedom is important to civilized people,more education =more demand for freedom....thus indepedece
The casus beli or the taxes were less the problem than the mother countries attempts to extend more control over us, when we had for so long been permitted to tend to our own affairs. If the mother country wanted money she need only have asked and our colonial legislature would have raised the tax as had been the case up till then. The real problem the British had with the colonies was the wealth and unbelievably large land holdings of people who in England would probably own small parcels if it all galled them. They saw when they came over during the french and Indian war how large the country was and how rich men of lesser classes. This could not stand in their minds. Our problem was we did not want to show deference and bend under more direct control. After seeing this country the British who came here wanted to put us in our proper place. We thought our proper place was much higher than they. So both sides made their excuses and war was the result of actions and words under false pretenses.
It's a shame you didn't make more of an effort to bring an American Historian in for this, considering how misinformed on some points you are. George Washington didn't have wooden teeth and Benjamin Franklin was far more than a 'folksy scientist dabbling with electricity." He was a formidibale intelligence well-versed on the workings of British Parliament. So to say that Americans were ignorant of the role of the monarchy in relation to parliament is completely wrong. Some loyalists undoubedtly petitioned the King directly to intercede on their behalf, but the colonists at the forefront of governance simply rejected the parochial manner in which a theretofore dismissive and neglectful Empire had without consultation was sending down edicts to impose greater restrictions and taxation. More importantly, the condescending tone with which you trace over what to many Americans are significantly disturbing events, like the Boston Massacre, is disturbing. You summarization in dismissive terms and without proper diligence in your investigations into the matter, makes you seem as pompous and ignorant as the British at the time. For example you failed to provide the background to the incident in which a 50 gun warship arrived in Boston harbor and seized a Merchant Sloop. A young boy had also been murdered just prior by a British customs agent. These incidents greatly inflamed tensions, which as is typical of British historians/apologists, was omitred in order to make yourselves feel better. The fact that only a few men died in comparison with other battles throughout history doesn't make it any less a 'massacre' to those who were there. It does not put you in good light to attempt to minimize the incident as an oversensationlized skirmish by backwards colonists as your chortling manner conveys. No wonder American colonists kicked your soggy bottoms out and proceeded to build the largest empire in human history. Now they are the ones on the brink of letting much of it slip away, and it will no odubt be due to the same arrogance and dismissiveness that this will come to pass.
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
As an American I can say you’ve done a great job here.
Unfortunately most Americans are taught a children’s version of these events, reflected in many of the comments here. They never hear about the founders’ land speculating, their desire to drive out the Indians and take the West, their plans to conquer Canada, the New England merchants’ desire to take control of the Caribbean, and to expel all European powers from the entire hemisphere. Except for the conquest of Canada (there were two unsuccessful invasions), eventually all this just “happened”.
Very true.
You say that and yet Tom makes the point in the very beginning of the podcast that in the UK the American Revolution is NOT taught in schools at all. I can tell you as a "mature" American once upon a time American kids were taught factual history of the founding of the country. But I grew up in the 60s and 70s. I raised my kids with the historical references and resources I was taught they are now in their 30s and have their own children to which I also offer the educational resources I was taught. I collect old text books from that era to teach my grandkids. However because of REVISIONISM in government schools a LOT of subjects are either changed so as not to "offend" or NOT taught at all. Including math and science. 🤨🤨
And FYI George Washington did NOT have wooden teeth they were made of Ivory and they are or were on display at his home in Mount Vernon.
Quit being a British cuck. The English viewed the colonists as “other” & the 13 mainland colonies themselves as a financial burden instead the endless supply of resources & opportunities that the colonists knew it was. And even these geniuses consider this “sensible”. Had we pushed out the British Canadians like we did the Spanish, we could have been fully rid of all of these horrific Eurocentric ideologies that eventually came along & currently wouldn’t have to be asking idiotic questions like “what is a woman” from a movement that wanted to make the age of consent 13. Britain is a dead empire & European culture is eating itself. Just dead weight that needs to be cut loose. How long do we need to pay for their military budgets & intercede in their idiotic regional conflicts while being spat upon & insulted by their spineless gelatinous populaces? What possible use does Europe serve any American?
As an immigrant from the UK.in 1970s and had just finish my Service in the British Army am ashamed to say that l knew more about the Roman Legions in Britannia in the first Century AD( Chester Legio xx) than the British Army during The Revolutionary War.
And? You’re mad? Lol
As an avid history buff, imagine excitement on hearing two of Britain's foremost historians were embarking on a wide-ranging podcast! Upon first listening, imagine my surprise at the interspersed purile 70s schoolboy humour! Naturally I was hooked and delighted!
Bostonian here. One of the great sources of frustration for our local rum industry, and for consumers in general, was the British prohibition on molasses, used to make rum, from Spanish Cuba and Puerto Rico, and from French Sainte-Domingue (later Haiti). It was more readily available, and far cheaper, than what was available from producers in British Jamaica and Barbados, which the English nevertheless insisted Americans use as sources for sugar products. It gave rise to smuggling, and made reduction of sugar taxes seem irrelevant to Americans in that it didn't address the issue of American access to cheap sugar. The prohibition was also seen as benefiting wealthy producers and merchants at the expense of the American public.
I'm excited to hear your treacherous British perspective on the greatest struggle for liberty in man's history.
Do you reckon that British people don't know about the American War for Independence not because it was a defeat at the hands of the Americans, but because it was a defeat at the hands of the vile French?
Can't wait to hear the bitchy imperialists either lol
😂😂😂
Treacherous?
I'm American AF, but that's not at all applicable here.
@@ianmedford4855 in jest
I Love listening to the rich articulate voice of Professor Adam Smith, Tom and Dominic picked the right man for this interesting series on the American Revolution. My only gripe being English myself is to not hear an American historians view or account, apart from that, it's brilliant.
We got the American POV all the time, wherever we look. The glorious victory of American Freedom against British Tyranny.
@@joeygears5388 Agreed 👍
@@joeygears5388 do you though? Maybe you get it via pop culture or Americans online all the time. That's not necessarily the same as getting it direct from an American historian obviously.
WE STILL DONT GET REPRESENTATION OVER THERE HUH?!?!🤣🤣
“Taxation without representation” is a phrase that is taught to every child as the cause of American Revolution. It is interesting to hear why taxes were needed, from the British perspective. But it was the lack of representation we are taught was the issue (not that taxes were likely to be well received regardless).
And yet the citizens of the District of Columbia still are taxed without representation
It is astonishing that despite over a century of friendship the British still don't understand the American perspective on the American Revolutionary War. From the American point of view, the major causes of the war were taxation without representation in Parliament, the restriction on trade in the thirteen colonies by the British colonial mercantilist system, and the restriction on individual rights that the colonists rightfully believed was due to them under British law, as "the absolute rights of every Englishman". Far from refusing to negotiate, the First Continental Congress issued a Petition to the King in October of 1774 in response to the Intolerable Acts. Even as late as July 1775, the Second Continental Congress was still trying to avoid war, they issued the Olive Branch Petition. These entreaties were rebuffed. In fact, the British refused to even receive the Olive Branch Petition when it arrived at Court in August 1775. Later that week, the King issued the Proclamation of Rebellion. This occurred a year before the Declaration of Independence and when hostilities had only broken out in one colony: Massachusetts. Despite this, the Proclamation declared all the North American colonies in rebellion. In appealing to the King, the Continental Congress was not trying to subvert Parliament as "Royalists". The American Revolutionary leaders were not "Tories". In fact, they saw themselves carrying on the Whig and Liberal tradition of the 17th Century in opposition to a Tory government of Lord North in Parliament. (This is where the monikers "Patriots" and "Tories" comes from. In the thirteen colonies supporters of Independence were referred to as "Patriots" and supporters of loyalty to the crown were called "Tories".) The Continental Congress appealed to the King because the King was the sovereign in whose name Parliament acted; the Colonies were founded upon royal charters and not acts of Parliament; the King was the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces being quartered in the colonies; Parliament had no legitimate claim over the colonies since the colonies had no representation in Parliament; and because English Law had a longstanding tradition of subjects being able to petition the King as a judicial court for redress of grievances and to seek relief from unjust laws which infringed on their rights. All of these entreaties and redresses were rebuffed by the British government with no good faith effort to negotiate. The Proclamation of Rebellion undermined moderates in the Continental Congress that were still seeking a peaceful resolution. Frankly, the root cause underlying the injuries above and the lack of response to American attempts at negotiations was British Imperialism, a refusal to treat British subjects living in the colonies as equals with equal rights under the law and equal representation in Parliament.
Nicely put! It's a shame that English/British attitudes of the ruling class is to ignore popular petitions from the downtrodden until pushed to an absolute limit. By that time, it's too late. What might have worked in England (send in the militia and cut down the mob) couldn't work in the 13 colonies.
Glad you saved me from having to type a shittier version of that. Ultimately war was unavoidable because the issue was Parlament itself; either let the colonies in or let them have our own under the King. Either solution would greatly alter the established power dynamic and potentially thereafter the economic dynamic that was enriching London.
No taxation without representation is a catchy slogan and has a lot to be said for it, but many of the movers of the revolution wanted no taxation under any circumstances. A good few were active smugglers.
@billythedog-309 It is more than a slogan. It is a fact. The British denied Americans representation in Parliament and ignored the acts of the Colonial Assemblies and the rulings American courts, even when they favored British interests. (See, the acquittals of most of the Boston Massacre soldiers) Nor did Parliament acknowledge even devolved powers to colonial assemblies as it does now with the national assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The conduct of the British administrations towards the American colonies from 1763 to 1783 was tyranny. Nor would any British subject in UK today suffer similar treatment as they require the American colonials to have endured.
@@Desert-Father lf you read my comment you would notice l acknowledge that the slogan has merit, but you then think that answers the main point - that many of the men behind the revolution objected to tax whether justified or not.
Always good to hear a British historians perspective on the American revolution. We're so caught up in the modern politics of it all.
So many fundamental mistakes.
"Taxation without representation is tyranny." Americans had taxed themselves before Parliament did, through their own representative bodies. What they objected to weren't the Duties and Taxes, but that it was being imposed without consent. Americans had also defended themselves from the French and Indians, and others, since the beginning of settlement. The sending of troops to America by Britain wasn't seen as being necessary for defense, but as a means for the "Sovereign" Parliament, which had no representation from America, to impose its dictates by on Englishmen by force - just as Charles I did.
If the British government has simply allocated representation to Americans in Parliament, there would have been no Revolution. In fact, as all Americans understood at the time, the population of Englishmen in America was the largest body of Englishmen who had no representation in Parliament in the entire Empire. Even the planters in Jamaica and Barbados had, for the most part, representation in Parliament as they nearly always owned estates in Britain as well.
And, also, purchasing membership in The Rest Is History Club *is* taxed in America.
Oh my word, you Limeys did it! With interest, I listen.
Without justice what are kingdoms but great robberies? St Augustine
Paranoid Americans racing off against the wrong enemy? Unbelievable!
What the British didn't understand was that they left the colonists to regress into far more savage mentality and suddenly decided to civilize them. By then there was a cultural disconnect across the Atlantic.
The British were thinking of making peace with the natives and even abolish slavery. But the colonists were by then confident enough to ask for more. They had suffered and now that Ohio was almost in their grasp thought that London was holding them back. They wanted more and didn't care for natives and certainly didn't want to give up slavery.
The more immigrants arrived there was more pressure to take over more land and implement what the British had done in the West Indies. They had more of a warrior attitude than the gentry in London.
Enlightenment stuff was as usual excuse to demand for freedom or in other words to be left alone to do what they wanted instead of being told what to do by a bunch of old men across and ocean.
George Washington and the rest who has enslaved Africans under the British Flag now wanted their own.
You see that all throughout history with expats during the age colonialism. They are sent into the heart of darkness on behalf of their masters and once they embrace darkness they no longer want to listen to their comfortable masters. This reminds me of scene in Apocalypse Now with the French expats who have nothing to return to in France and just want to keep what they fought for. The same was true of Rhodesia and South Africa. After they had climatized to the savagery, they were different with different values.
This is that same thing as with the third world wanting to burn fossil fuel but being told not to do so by Westerners who had built their progress on the same fossil fuel that they were now being denied by the same people who started climate change.
As usual illogical but understandable.
Franklin was asked "now you've won what will become of the revolution? Replied the revolution was over 20 years ago. That galvanizing is intersting if true
Like the shout out for Wilkes Barre, PA!!
Perhaps someone can straighten me out on this obscure question. I've asked about it elsewhere on TH-cam but couldn't get a definitive answer.
A long time ago I read somewhere - but I can't remember where - that as Britain's military situation worsened and the expense of the war kept growing, Lord North (the Prime Minister) drew up a secret plan to end hostilities on advantageous terms to Britain. It would, he believed, allow the British to escape defeat and even come out ahead.
His plan was firstly to face the fact that New England and the mid-Atlantic colonies were lost. There was no point pretending otherwise. But South Carolina and Georgia - where Loyalist sentiment was strong - were far from lost. These colonies were major producers of commodities which Britain valued: tobacco, cotton, indigo and rice.
He therefore planned to recommend to George III that Britain offer all the colonies independence except South Carolina and Georgia. Plus Britain would retain Manhattan - a strong Loyalist enclave - as a sort of prestige possession.
However, Lord North was strongly advised against presenting this plan to the king. The monarch, his advisers warned, would never accept a piecemeal arrangement. It had to be all or nothing. So he gave up on the idea.
Does this ring a bell with anyone? Or is my memory playing tricks?
I don't understand how the desire by American colonialists to have political representation in parliament was ignroed in this podcast. Maybe the next episode? This is huge.
A glaring oversight since from the American perspective, taxation without representation in Parliament is the most prominent cause of the war.
@@Desert-Father lt was a prominent pretext - much the same as today, Americans despised any kind of taxation with or without representation.
@billythedog-309 As they should. It is no mere pretext. The power to tax is the power to destroy. A government that acts without the people's consent, especially on such grave matters, is tyrannical. The British may be content to live as subjects of a king. The Americans are not.
@@Desert-Father What kind of idiot are you? Clearly one who knows fuck all about the British Constitution.
Imagine if they had just given us a few seats in Parliament?
We'd have conquered the whole world together.
Sounds like it was probably for the best then.
@@IreliAmBadwell, maybe not. Ww1 and 2 may not have happened. A lot may be for the better. The British honestly were saints compared to most empires. Yes unfair taxes and at times authoritarian but all in all not very opessivecompared to almost every other empire ever.
Also america may never expand to the pacific in that scenario so, I like this one better lol
Tell that to the Irish!
@@l01ner. The Irish victims narrative is pretty much a 20th century nationalist invention. Have a look at Dublin and all the rail systems, schools ect - yes the catholic Irish were discriminated against but it really wasn’t like how post independence propaganda makes out.
The American sense of grievance apparently has deep historical roots.
If the Americans did not have representation in parliament, then they were right to disobey it. They were subjects of King George but they were not parliamentary constituents, so I think you're being unfair to present them as being absurd in their royalism and for being disdainful of parliament.
I don't know if you're American. If you are, you should know that socialism has so inveigled itself into the European mindset over the last hundred years that, even with amongst who are considered right wing, the basic benevolence of government is taken for granted. This is really why English people don't "get" the American Revolution. In this culture, the fact that you're not represented by government is not nearly as important as the government "doing things" for you.
@Dabhach1 Well I wouldn't say it's socialist per say, Europe has had top down strong state systems for hundreds of years.
It's more of a new world vs old world mentality.
@@Dabhach1There's that typical right-wing American paranoia. Everyone's out to get you, including your own government.
@@gomey70 I'm not American.
Can your taxes cover all those expenses without crippling working or elderly people? ❤
The colonies petitioned the king because parliament refused to grant them representation. Supremacy of parliament when said parliament refuses to represent them is fairly nonsensical.
And there was a plan to subjegate the colonists, it was being actively carried out. They weren't being represented and were having laws imposed upon them without any means for them to consent. I don't get why this is such difficult item to grasp. That is subjugation.
What subjegation was being carried out? Paying tax to fund the military security for the colonies and securing further expansion? The colonists were already reaping the benefits of being part of the British empire while citizens in the metropol were funding it. It was basically parliment asking them to kick in for providing security and military support both for expansion and for the French Indian war which had been funded by taxpayers in Britain by, in part, paying the stamp tax, all parliament did was implement the same tax in the colonies. Without British military help, the colonists would have been destroyed and subjegated by the French and their native allies. They had appealed for help which the mother country gave. In fact no new taxes were created specifically for the colonies, they were the same ones as the mother country and they simply became more diligant in collecting them due to the cost of the seven years war.
It couldnt have been about representation as after eliminating everyone under the age of 21, all slaves and women, most Jews and Catholics, plus those men too poor to be freeholders, the colonial electorate consisted of perhaps only 10 percent to 20 percent of the total population.
Also petitioning the King made no difference. In Britain the elected body had supremacy over the crown after the glorious revolution, the King could not overide parliamentary acts, to do so would have caused another constitutional crisis. I dont know how you could even have had parliamentary representation in the colonies, no other colonies had any and they were represented by the colonial secretary, I suppose you could have had people living in Britain permanently corresponding with the colonies like an ambassador but then parliament would then have felt justified in taxing them to the same level as British citizens on the mainland at the time which was waaaay higher than what they were being asked to do so the situation would probably have turned out the same.
@@endlessnameless6628 You make some really important points about why the British felt the colonies should pay towards their own security. It's natural for white Americans to resist the idea that their forebearers had underhand motives for wanting to relinquish the British Empire but once you realise that you bear no responsibility for their actions, or in fact, anyone else's actions but your own, it's easier to look upon it more objectively. I do the same about the British Empire: rich, powerful and entitled people were carving the world up and exploiting the indigenous populations and natural recourses. Twas ever thus and is still happening now. There is no value in trying to defend their actions.
It's difficult to argue the richest of the colonists were inherently right when they were so keen on subjugating others (of other classes) without any means for them to consent or have representation.
What happened to the James Cook pre history episode??🤔Has someone taken offence?
I would love to hear these great historians dig into a thesis I came upon while I was visiting Williamsburg, Virginia. In a bookstore I came across a book titled “slave nation“ that says that the protection of slavery was a big motive for the revolutionaries. in 1772 a British judge declared slavery contrary to English common law effectively abolishing slavery in England. The burning question at that point became to what extent that would be applied to the colonies, which it eventually was an 1831. The Book doesn’t come up with much of a smoking gun as far as it’s main thesis is concerned, but in the time since I’ve read it, I have basically become convinced of its truth. In this conversation, the historians discuss the fact that the taxation the colonist faced really wasn’t significant. They note taxation doesn’t make much of a motive to separate from England. The slavery issue fits better, and might be taken to explain the paranoid language of the declaration of independence.
Were the colonists anti-Parliament? Or were they only asking for direct representation in Parliament? Their problem with Parliament, it's my understanding, was that they had no members in it.
A New England born and raised hero of the French and Indian War called Robert Rogers was the most famously lauded American born and raised military figure prior to the Revolution. His story would make a great discussion between you both
Hi guys. Love ur podcasts. Can you please do one and the Barbary slave trade and Thomas Pellow?
In the historical context is it accurate that all three contributors use England and Britain, the English and British as though they are one and the same thing?
Its nice to actually hear the historical intricacies and nuance of the history of the American revolution rather than the idealistic fairytale that always seems to get retold.
"The key to the American Revolution is the authority of Parliament vis a vis the independence of the colonies." Oh please -- you think the fact that the colonists were sending very polite letters of petition to the king meant that they didn't understand the role of parliament and they were expecting the king to over rule parliament? Yeah, super smart guys like Jefferson, Patrick Henry , and Adams (all of whom were lawyers) were just too ignorant to know this.
You know what the key is? The deep and profound love of liberty which the patriots expressed in all they said and did and which still inspires Americans today in a way which I honestly believe the British simply do not understand. Where I live in Connecticut, revolutionary war flags can be seen flying from front porches everywhere. "Live free or die" is on the license plate of every car in New Hampshire. The mascot of my son's university in Massachusetts is the "minute man" the farmer ready to defend freedom on a minute's notice. You can't understand America until you understand this.
George Washington did not have wooden teeth. Wtf? Shocked an Oxford professor actually believes that.
As they said at the outset, Brits don’t generally learn about the American revolution, and tbh most Americans still hold this misconception
@@bretttheroux8040 I think they were referring to the average British citizen. Professor Adam Smith, like @datdavid mentions, is an Oxford professor. He should know these things.
They weren't wood, but they also weren't his own. His dentures were made out of ivory and cadaver teeth.
The American revolution depending on what teacher you get in high school can be very different. It is very strange because I switched Teachers halfway through my sophomore year and the view of the American revolution was like a 180°. One guy was super patriotic and ra ra america was wronged and rising on the world vs a guy who said the american revolution happened because Britain was transitioning to a world empire and was still on the learning curve. And that the revolution by modern standards was not justifiable
Yes the American War of Independence isn't much known about here in the UK, I had come across it in boyhood, but even though I did A Level History I had never heard of the War of 1812 until I was into my 20s (1980s). You'd have thought burning down the White House would have been part of our 'national imagination' rather than a forgotten incident.
Whitehall couldn’t understand the Americans complaints as they were lowly taxed and had everything they wanted so why need more land. This from Britain expanding still around the world, and is this showing the class stay in your lane culture of English?
Well the point is that the only reason the colonists were able to even think about expanding was that British forces had won the 7 years war securing the colonies at the expense of the British tax payer who funded the whole thing and had put a massive strain on the British economy.Then the colonies wanted both protection from and ability to expand into Indian land which would require more security provided by British military forces costing even more money yet when asked to fund said security through the stamp act ( a tax that British tax payers had been paying since the late 1600's) they didnt want to hence it all starts to unravel.
Americans need to know and understand these truths--and much more.
But didn’t those children who went out into hostile territories deserve and were owed less tax than in England which had all the established government provisions which the Americans created at great cost?
The English where already Taxed higher. The American tax was to pay for Defence of the Colonies!
It sounds to me like most of the problem here was a breakdown of communication, which isn't surprising considering the distances involved, and the length of time the societies had been separated.
When it comes to allocating blame for what happened, Britain can only be blamed for poor tactics and some insensitivity in its' handling of the colonies. The Americans however can be blamed for wanting their cake and eating it. If they'd been given de facto Independence under the Crown they'd have expected to pay no tax to the Crown, but if they ever needed defending they'd have expected Britain to pay with money and lives to defend them.
We still get this sort of thing nowadays. Independence movements in Scotland and Wales in the UK, think they can become Independent, whilst despite having been over represented in the Parliament which has borrowed it all, refusing to take their share of the UK National Debt with them, and even continue to receive state pensions from the English taxpayer and have their banks and bank deposits underwritten by the Bank of England.
Needless to say they'd expect to be defended, whilst spending nothing on their own on defence.
Even now the UK spends FAR more in Wales and Scotland (in the case of Wales double) the amount it collects from them in tax, but the nationalists still complain they're not getting even more.
There's also controversy going on at the moment about the Wales and Scottish Government's disastrous handling of Covid. Despite the fact that they have total devolved responsibility for public health, their excuse is that they didn't receive 'leadership' from the UK. In this respect the Scottish Nationalists even sometimes refer to England 'as the lead nation'.
This is exactly what was happening in the Colonies, but much more so. There'd have bound to be fracture eventually. The best thing to have done would have given them total Independence under the Crown, and if they ever needed defending tell them we want cash up front.
On the other hand there was a happy outcome for Great Britain from the War of Independence. France's meddling in it bankrupted them and largely caused the French Revolution, which ruined France. Britain retained all our valuable trading links with the USA whilst France gained nothing and soon ended up with no possessions at all in North America.
You talk about the Crown but as the podcast mentions the Crown had no power as constitutional monarch - Parliament is the true villain in the story (from the American perspective)
Excellent stream. Seems to me the most fundamental error was Britain’s ‘neglect”of sorts of the colonies in the previous decades. American propagandists were also extremely effective.
Here in Connecticut we have been dealing lead to tyrants for almost 250 years.
Tell King George we say hi!
Bottom line the Colonies did not need England as much as the UK needed to tax,also freedom is important to civilized people,more education =more demand for freedom....thus indepedece
"Swept", and still sweeping - we have a home in Sarasota, Florida, one turn off of Whitefield Rd. 🌴🇺🇸👍
The Americans have done rather well!
Oh jeez, they actually did it. The story of my treacherous forefathers lol
The colonials are still here
Fellow Americans, what do think? If you had lived back at that time, would you have supported the revolution, or would you have been a Royalist? Why?
Oh boy.... now we get to listen to the Euros inveigh against the greatest events in world history. This oughta be good
A timely conversation.
Was really hoping this would be a Dominic and Tom only episode. Guests always mean better info but worse fun
The casus beli or the taxes were less the problem than the mother countries attempts to extend more control over us, when we had for so long been permitted to tend to our own affairs.
If the mother country wanted money she need only have asked and our colonial legislature would have raised the tax as had been the case up till then.
The real problem the British had with the colonies was the wealth and unbelievably large land holdings of people who in England would probably own small parcels if it all galled them.
They saw when they came over during the french and Indian war how large the country was and how rich men of lesser classes. This could not stand in their minds.
Our problem was we did not want to show deference and bend under more direct control.
After seeing this country the British who came here wanted to put us in our proper place.
We thought our proper place was much higher than they. So both sides made their excuses and war was the result of actions and words under false pretenses.
Love listening to these guys but adverts every 5 mins is intolerable
How much Limey cope we have here?
Not enough to compensate the american cope that their revolution began because of the greed and entitlement of spoiled colonial capitalists.
"So-called" boston massacre, Dom?!! My sister was killed in the Boston Massacre!
Now guys if you wanted the unbiased perspective maybe a Polish or Swedish historian would have done the job a little more evenhandedly. Just sayin'.
There's no such thing as unbiased history.
It's a shame you didn't make more of an effort to bring an American Historian in for this, considering how misinformed on some points you are. George Washington didn't have wooden teeth and Benjamin Franklin was far more than a 'folksy scientist dabbling with electricity." He was a formidibale intelligence well-versed on the workings of British Parliament.
So to say that Americans were ignorant of the role of the monarchy in relation to parliament is completely wrong. Some loyalists undoubedtly petitioned the King directly to intercede on their behalf, but the colonists at the forefront of governance simply rejected the parochial manner in which a theretofore dismissive and neglectful Empire had without consultation was sending down edicts to impose greater restrictions and taxation.
More importantly, the condescending tone with which you trace over what to many Americans are significantly disturbing events, like the Boston Massacre, is disturbing. You summarization in dismissive terms and without proper diligence in your investigations into the matter, makes you seem as pompous and ignorant as the British at the time. For example you failed to provide the background to the incident in which a 50 gun warship arrived in Boston harbor and seized a Merchant Sloop. A young boy had also been murdered just prior by a British customs agent. These incidents greatly inflamed tensions, which as is typical of British historians/apologists, was omitred in order to make yourselves feel better. The fact that only a few men died in comparison with other battles throughout history doesn't make it any less a 'massacre' to those who were there. It does not put you in good light to attempt to minimize the incident as an oversensationlized skirmish by backwards colonists as your chortling manner conveys.
No wonder American colonists kicked your soggy bottoms out and proceeded to build the largest empire in human history. Now they are the ones on the brink of letting much of it slip away, and it will no odubt be due to the same arrogance and dismissiveness that this will come to pass.
Why do Brits see history in narrow, political, military, biographical terms? They do much with the social and cultural forces.
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 we don’t listen to tyrants if we CANT BE REPRESENTED. “NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION”wallow in ya weepin ya Brits!!
First! I'm first! Last, first I am!
You know, a few of us Americans still regret leaving Britain 😢
I still see you as British
its better pero eso es otra historia, the videos are funniest....