Correction: the French people in Quebec supported the revolution. Gen. Arnold succesfully occupied Quebec for many months, but the British sent a large fleet with reinforcements, and he was unable to hold it, even with the support of the French. After the war however the British gave the French in Quebec lots of rights they lacked. So in 1812 the French in Quebec were neutral or even opposed to the US invasion of Canada.
@@stevecooper7883 Yes, and the main reason he went from treason to espionage is because of corruption in the colonial congress. Example: his Quebec expedition was seriously hampered in reaching its start date and poorly provisioned for exactly that reason. Had he launched his attack the month or even two earlier that was possible and been adequately provisioned he might well have succeeded. Two months of longer occupation of Quebec might well have meant Quebec rebels trained and willing to fend off the British. Instead, he gets there, sets up shop and just a couple months later having barely arrived the British have sent reinforcements: which makes me ask whether there were British spies in the colonial camp reporting on Gen. Arnold's movements.
The Irish have one of the bravest and proudest traditions of rebellion. For 800 straight years, they have fought tooth and nail against the Brits, often to their own decimation; just fueling the fire for the next generation to take up arms. They are unparalleled in this regard.
Great video. I will, however, posit one thing. What actually did make Washington a good General was the fact that he realized the War of Independence was a marathon, not a sprint, and thus keeping his army together was more important than winning battles. He won the battles he needed to in order to keep the cause alive, but lost the ones he could afford to in order to keep his army alive. I think Washington contrasts in this way with Robert E. Lee in the Civil War. Lee won way more battles than he lost, but he continuously broke his army down in doing so. His stunning victory at Chancellorsville, for example, cost him more than just Stonewall Jackson, but a considerable number of his brigade and regimental commanders as well. Men who did the direct leading in the field and cannot just be replaced 1 for 1. After Chancellorsville was Gettysburg and we all know how that story ends. Granted, the Civil War was a far more total war, fought as the tide of the Industrial Revolution was gaining it's full momentum, but the point about Washington and Lee still stands.
I’d also say Washington had a good eye to see quality in men that many other generals overlooked and took advantage of the different insight of various opinions to give him some extra options to work with.
When you look how people spoke in those days it's trippy... I do speak slang. When I see them research papers who claim as time goes by language begins to simplify, I understand some points but I'm not sure the education level that people speak was supposed to deteriorate
It depends on the kind of thinking: it was a better era for political thought partly because thinking and even reading were limited to the elite and there was much less mass input. Trying to do science back then while possible was terribly limited by inadequate instruments. This IS the golden age for engineering AND it will not end expect MORE rather than fewer technical innovations, so much so we are running into hard limits imposed by physic in some fields, which are then immediately bypassed in some other field. You hae ALL the information at YOUR fingertips and if you choose to stick your head up p*rnhub and waste your time with drvgs who is to blame?``
@@QuizmasterLaw This is utter cope nonsense. I used to believe this fully but the truth is the internet is not free and you really can't "just do anything you want" with it. Also, some things are just not well done on the internet and must be done in person and in the flesh. The world does not revolve solely around the internet or mass communication, as powerful as these tools are. The world still happens in person, the internet didn't change that. All it did was make it harder to get people there.
@@algorithmgeneratedanimegir1286 Absolutely no one and nothing is stopping you from taking advantage of the greatest library in world history and its right at your fingertips. No one prevents you from actually reading Plato, Aristotle, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Napoleon, and and and. About 3/4 of all human literature is on the internet and it is not difficult to find. Then too you can learn any foreign language you like any time you actually Make The Effort and then you can learn any other skill too. You have this fantastic knowledge machine staring you in the face and if you are too lazy or undisciplined or stupid to take advantage of it and ramp up your revenue -- whose fault is that?
We don’t give the founding fathers enough credit in the modern day for the quantum leap they made for democracy and the world. In the modern day, we often criticize them for not making America democratic enough upon independence. However, if you looked at the history of democracy and republics leading up to the American revolution, it really did seem like a failed experiment. Athens and its sister republics lost, again, and again. Rome reached the Pax Romana right after dissolving the republic. States like Venice and Holland lost to France and Austria. Poland was losing to Russia, and Cromwell’s republic had burned out quickly in England. It took serious balls to take the risk the founding fathers did, testing this new radical form of government. The most radical form of this type of government in the history of humanity. Yet they did it, and did it beautifully, leading to the greatest nation on Earth. Mad respect to them. 🫡 RAAAAAA USA USA USA USA 🇺🇸 🦅 🦅 💥
Depends how you measure great. You are a fast burn Empire afraid of its own Empire. I don't think 100 years at the top will mean anything in history, a flash in the pan.
I'm on a major NeoClassical France Kick lately. I'm thusly convinced that the French Revolution is so complex, nuanced, layered in propaganda historically through moderns, and intriguing that literally all but one summary ever has landed short of the mark to explain it with succinct success and therefore inevitably are doomed to be reductive. The one exception is more of an opinion and a quote when during Nixon's Overtures to Mao US diplomats asked a Chinese People's Liberation Army General what his opinion on the French Revolution is? The General answered, "It's too soon to tell." Apologies because, I believe I learned this from the Rud Dawg! I think I did. Please take full credit if I don't find out for sure and come back to edit. Don't be too humble. I love the quote.
I’m disappointed that you didn’t bring up George III demanding that his troops put tacks in the colonist’s tea. It really did happen! My source is Bugs Bunny cartoon.
I studied revolutions in school and was so disappointed I didn't learn about the American Revolution. Did the French and Chinese Revolutions instead of the American and Russian Revolutions. Loved it and learned a great deal.
Legally speaking, yes, the colonists absolutely fought for their rights as Britons, thus the right to parliamentary representation. The British argument was that the colonists had indirect virtual representation by the British parliament. This incidentally echos in the idea of representation of the slave population as 3/5 citizens; they had indirect representation. I have never however encountered the idea that the British regarded the Americas as merely conquered territory. These people were in fact British subjects, and as such were sworn to allegiance to the crown, which is why the rebellion was treason.
Funny thing about the 3/5 compromise... 🤔 It's often held up as a great injustice that slaves only counted for 3 fifths. The southern position was that slaves should count as a full person, so that southern power in Congress would be greater. But that would only be counting as a full person for census purposes - slaves naturally wouldn't be able to vote. So counting slaves as 3/5s of a person, was actually an attempt to better the lives of slaves by reducing southern power at the federal level. 💁🏻♂️
@@yomomz3921 it's held as an injustice because it wouldn't make sense to want slaves to give you more power because they add to your population but also not want them to be able to vote
Taxed Indians, as opposed to non-taxed Indians, were also apportioned but at 100%; taxed does not however mean naturalized which is a REALLY interesting lurking constitutional argument just waiting for some conspiratist!
Britain: Let's clean up our little island by removing all the malcontents and rabble-rousers. Off to the Americas with you! Also Britain: They've rebelled, you say? Well, who could have seen that coming?
This is refreshing to get a good summary. For some reason I ran into a channel that did something barbaric, a Brit insisting to fix our country’s problems today we should turn back to, monarch. 😱 The funny thing is that I had to listen to this Brit skim through our country’s origin history from his angle and to make matters worse, I dared look at the comment section 😂 Among the comment section there was a discussion about how the topic came up in the video the Brits don’t actually bother to study this war but only to use it as a template to compare to the French Republic! Tried to explain in this thread that if the Brits actually disciplined themselves to learn more about the American Revolutionary War, they could have prevented losing more colonies from their empire. Of course it’s the Brits, this topic it falls on deaf ears yet they scratch their heads how we managed to become so powerful. Just proves our Founding Fathers were right separating ourselves from the Brits, this is coming from someone who does live them, they are strangely self deprecating prideful bunches lol. At least glad we are on good terms with them though, generally speaking.
I would absolutely love to see Rudyard do a video comparing the English civil war, the American revolution, the French revolution, and the American civil war. It's a lot of ground, but he already did all of them separately so really "all" that would be required is to connect the dots. If feeling really ambitious toss in the USSR 1917 and maybe the Chinese revolution (Sun Yat Sen, not the Chinese civil war) as a follow on video!
@@QuizmasterLaw So your research thinks it’s important for you to go to a channel you deem as the intellectual of an undergraduate? And no one else is aloud to do their own research?
The American Revolution had to happen for one reason: God Himself inspired the most enlightened men in the world at the time to organize a government, a more perfect union, to carry out His Will for the American people and for the world to see a model of Constitutional rights that mankind could follow.
You and Yarvin are both topsy-turvey. American revolutionists weren’t (mostly) not wanting the King to tell them what to do, they were opposing Parliament.
The American “Revolution” wasn’t a revolution. No one was trying to overthrow the British government. It was a war of independence. America was just trying to break free. And after the war was over, America won, and England was still in tact. If it had been an actual revolution, and America won, the British government would have been overthrown and America and England would still be part of the same country, just with a different government.
And the Colonies in North America had never truthfully been protected by British troops. From the beginning colonists were on their own that is why each colony would have their military person. Such as Myles Standish. Britain would provide a Royal Charter were the king would give a set parcel to a person or entity. What is often not explained is how the British Civil War changed things. The colonies set up prior to the 1640’s had Royal Charters then, with the over throw of the monarchy, all those charters were null and void. And many of the holders of those Charters had lost alll their money and land. The only thing that saved the New England colonies was Oliver Cromwell liked the Puritans. But with the coming of French and Indian War in the 1750’s suddenly British troops appeared in North America.
Exactly; the US has had no "revolution" and no "civil war". They've had two wars of secession: one successful (USA leaving Britain) and one unsuccessful (CSA leaving USA).
"A History of Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind" has a wonderful fact checked peer review analysis on the reasons for the American Independence War that weren't explained here.
You said Morocco was the first country to recognize America. But today is 16 Nov which according to wiki is: Statia Day is a national holiday celebrated in the Caribbean island of Sint Eustatius, a special municipality of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It celebrates the "First Salute", when Sint Eustatius (known locally as Statia) became the first country to recognize the United States.
I’ve noticed that Rudyard likes to use New Jersey as a reference for how small a place is in his videos! Lol I’ve really enjoyed watching these videos on this channel where he sits in front of a camera and tells you the history; it may not be super high budget but it’s very informative and down to earth. Keep up the hard work!
As a second-generation American (my parents were the immigrants from India), I don’t have ancestors that fought in the American Revolution (1775-81). I do have ancestors that fought in the Sepoy Mutiny (1857-59), known as India’s First War for Independence. Spoiler alert: the Indians lost, and my family decided to surrender to the British just so they could survive. My ancestors were part of the Mughal landed gentry from Delhi, and after being pushed east into Bihar in the aftermath of the Mutiny, they got to be zamindars (tax farmers); that system lasted until the 1950s. The narrative of the American Revolution and the early republic does fascinate me; George Washington could have become King George I of these United States after overthrowing King George III of Great Britain. He, in fact, chose not to be. Even as I child, I found that rather admirable.
My friend and brother, if you or your parents choose to come to our land and become Americans, then our ancestors are you ancestors too. Your ancestors are George Washington and Thomas Jefferson just as much as your ancestors from the beautiful ancient land of India. Welcome to the family. 😊
@@codecixteen That’s a very beautiful perspective. I wish someone told me that when we would sing “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” every morning at P.S. 173 Queens (NYC) in the 90s. In that song, the lines “Land where my father’s died / Land of the Pilgrims’ pride” made me feel less than welcome. My father, thank God, was and still is alive, and I did not have any biological ancestors thet came on the Mayflower. Somehow, it felt awkward as a Brown boy with a song that took the melody of the British anthem and seemed to primarily discuss White Anglo-Saxon Protestants celebrating their ancestors. My father only arrived by plane at JFK in 1971 on a engineering student visa and my mother (who he went back to India to marry in September 1985) reached there in February 1987, being sponsored by him. I was born the following November. Your interpretation, however, definitely harmonizes things. Thank you.
@@aasifazimabadi786 I’m sorry you felt excluded by that. I’m sure it wasn’t the purpose of that song to make people feel uncomfortable. As you point out, it’s a traditional song that remembers a time when peoples from the British Isles settled here. I think that’s really all it’s meant to do. We swim in a culture where people who harbor resentment try to spread their bitterness so they feel less lonely, and that can train us without realizing it to see our fellow Americans as something other than that. Our ancestors built this nation in the hope that all could work together (or apart) to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. When a person comes to this land and says “I will live the American way of life” then they are my family.
@@codecixteen I agree. America is based on ideology rather than ethnicity. I’m white, but also descended from later immigrants, so no blood connections to the revolutionary generation. The nation continues in large part because of immigrants such as the original poster’s father who want to be part of the process. If you’re inspired to live respecting the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution you would likely be a good American
Right on this week's history 102 I got a broken leg need good content to kill time. I'm going to listen to all the what if althist vids and watch next few days I think .😂
God, I can't tell you how many times I have learned about the American Revolution. Still waiting for that Achaemenian Empire or maybe Persia video. Who knows~
The British elites were Royalty (Power by birth right) and the American's were a new bourgeoisie class (Power by merit and hard work). A inevitable clash of ideologies. [leviathan and its enemies reference]
Marx mos def was influenced by the USA civil war and Indians but idk if he drew aristocracy versus bourgeoisie from US rev, he is much more influenced by french civil war i have no idea why marxolol thought red terror and dictatorship to be horrible. ti's why he lost, even contemporary PRC/CCP won't go all in on red terror and dictatorship.
@@QuizmasterLawMarxism was actually more inspired by the French Revolution where class restructure was the bases. The Europeans are more focused on class divide, the American Revolution was focused on creating a government that acknowledges human flaws and has buffers to prevent an overrule of tyranny. The French believed that flaws can be fixed, that perfection was obtainable. Besides the aristocracy they targeted religion because Christianity was honestly about the dark side humanity can possess and wanted that basic knowledge to be eliminated so the Jacobins could have the excuse to be authoritarian. The Founding Fathers meanwhile had a respect for religion, it was a nation full of people whose ancestors fled Europe to escape religious persecution. They also learn from the multiple wars in the recent centuries were involved with a pious leader that became sanctimonious to dominate other faiths and understood religion was needed to guide the people spiritually but there had to be a separation of power from politics. I could go on, but a lot of Europeans THINK they understood the Americans were radical in overthrowing the monarchy when really the real goal was to not be ruled by a regime that didn’t listen to the people and degrade them to second class citizens. Many Americans were not happy with King George III and is the most loathed monarchy to Americans of all generations. But there was a mixed response to how the French Revolution went down, as the Americans were friends with the King and Queen of France, and the new republic of France was mystified in the lack of warmth from the early American government. The French might have just retained their king as a pawn to then treason him and his wife to the guillotine, but Americans actually once had loyalty to the British crown believing they were British subjects, therefore less of them were on board with over throwing the monarchy like that. The Americans also had an independent spirit to never rely on others to fix there problems if possible, an idea that greatly contrast most Europeans where it was always those in government to provide and look after their subjects. Themes that match more Marxist ideas than the core reasons the American colonies rebelled. I think there is little discussion how the new American government had changed certain structures, other key components is that there was some structures that retained from the influence of the British that I believe was the most vital reason why the brand new country of the USA didn’t go to anarchy or became overruled by tyrants is because they still had British Common Laws that impacted a harmony in this very young country. Meanwhile the French loathes anything British and would have been appalled to be influenced by British culture. Therefore, if we compare this to a family tree but of governments, the US would be a branch breaking off from the British Empire, specifically the English, the French monarchy would have died but the Republic of France branched off the French monarchy yet had some influence from the American Revolution war. Marx was a German that never really travel to the US to get a better perspective and understanding of the American Revolution, but he had access to France and French philosophers. *Plus we have a different war called the American Civil war, had NOTHING to do with Marx’s inspiration to his philosophy.
At 41:36 ish you made a comment that the Founding Fathers A) believed in the common good & B) spoke very bluntly about a list of topics like "class, sex or race..." What would it take for an elaboration on this idea?
Love ur shit dude. Do you think I might be helpful to write out some notes before you do one of these so that you can pull on specific facts directly. I feel like this would really up the content to make real authority rather than a passing podcast.
Spanish colonies had self-government in their own way, there were local “parliament” that governed with the militar leader assigned by the monarchy. Is not that simple
Bernardo Galvez lead a successful year long campaign out of new orleans and defeated the British in 4 significant actions at the time of the american revolution leading an army that spoke 3 languages
The truth is that The Proclamation of 1763 was a temporary thing because the British forbade the colonists to go westward until the British develop a plan on how are they going to divide the land west of the Appalachian Mountains but the Colonists were land hungry and wanted to go west quickly, the British also needed taxes to pay their territories they gained from the French and Indian War and the Founding Fathers were rich White men who didn't want to pay taxes and the Colonies/US won the war by luck.
Useful charts is dishonest. I used to watch him until I saw it. He lies with stats like all statisticians. Charts are just visual stats. I’ve seen times I disagree with or times whatif is wrong but I’ve never seen him say and double down on something he knows is untrue. You can be wrong. And we can disagree. I don’t let people knowingly lie to me and take my time and energy. Pretty sure whatif has seen that as well so the team up won’t happen. Successful people don’t waste time and energy on unfruitful endeavors.
The first secular democracy on earth, and also the first federation; a limited government of laws, not men, in an age of absolutism, monarchy, personal rule, and religious tyranny. When the American republic appeared on the stage it inaugurated "A New Order of the Ages" (Novus Ordo Saeclorum), and that is not an exaggeration. Since then, tyrannies in various forms, whether styled as monarchies, theocracies, and dictatorships, fall one after another as the American model of government extends its reach to country after country. Today governments modelled after the principles of separation of powers, federalism, democracy, and rule of law are the majority of governments, but there was a time when there was only one such government. Like I said it's a global liberation war. btw the US government was designed to prevent a counter-revolution. Believe me, I red teamed the living shit out of revolution in the USA in the 1990s and early 2000s.
@@longiusaescius2537 At the federal level definitely secular. Most states had an official religion, at least as colonies, maryland was the sole catholics state, rhode island was officially non-confessional, they had no state religion at all. It's also worth pointing out there were e.g. Jewish people living in the USA at the time of independence, basically Dutch merchant Jews. You want to imagine a religious republic but that is exactly what they did NOT want because they were literal refugees from Europe's insane genocidal religious wars. The federation certainly was to have no role in religion, and aside from officiall non-confessional Rhode Island most of the colonies / states that had an official religion also had de fact or even de jure recognitions of religious freedoms for other religions. This is really different from the bullshit lies that xtians have been spreading for at least 50 years now claiming, entirely falsely, that the USA is a christian nation. have i mentioned all those Indians and Slaves? Because while some were "praying Indians" and christianized others were not yet, if taxed were apportioned into the census. The early USA was much more a racial state than a religious one.
@@QuizmasterLaw well US is/was a christian nation, the vast majority of the people from colonial time until few decades ago were christians. nation = people (im not talking about the government)
@@feliciaf8 Yes, that is *basically* true but like I already pointed out there were in fact exceptions, Jewish people most notably to you but also Indians, even the occasional Moslems. However, unlike the European theocratic monarchies there was no national religion like Anglicism in England, Catholicism in France and Spain or Eastern Orthodoxy in Russia. Instead there were Anglicans Presbyters who had their respective national churches but also Catholics and Quakers and Amish and Mennonites and so on. The USA has never had a national religion. Some of the colonies did, but at last Rhode Island was officially non-confessional. The federal principle of no national religion soon found its way into the states. I guess I should look up when the various states abolished their official state religions. But even in those jurisdictions that had an official religion there were also various legal and practical guaranties of religious freedom, some constitutional, others by ordinary legislation, and still others by local ordnance or even just no regulations at all but the customary practice was entirely clear that there was and is a constitutional right to one's own religious confession. This is very different both from the European continent these REFUGEES FLED FROM and the neofascist "christian" bullshit being spewed by murrican theocrats since around 1970. No, America is NOT a christian nation. That is what we fled from! Islamists are just the latest iteration of religious wars.
27:18 true, taxes back then were harder to track, nowadays it's largely W-2s and that's just too easy paper for the government to pass up so taxes for everyone.
A better representation of Yarvin's argument might be that the British gave the Americans too much freedom from the crown to begin with and then, due to pro-American whig influence, took only a weak oppositional stance to the revolutionary sentiment in America when a more appropriate response would have been to crush the revolutionaries with the full strength of the empire and install pro-crown leadership. It's not so much that he sees the Americans as the "bad guys", rather it's a criticism of the British whigs who he believes cost Britain greatly by essentially supporting the American revolutionaries over their own country.
@@hologramjosh the British were not interested in going out conquering the land, establishing population centers, etc… they were more interested in here is a place you can go and you might make a go of it or you may be dead in a few weeks. Also as things happened with the English Civi War and both its aftermath and then the re- established monarchy and no let’s find a new monarch things were not stable for quite some time. But I do agree by the time things were settled in England the colonies had been in their own for a long time. I also think a hundred years later and Britain would have said “ great welcome to the Commonwealth”!
There’s a video I can’t remind that did a partial good take of explaining how Americans have this gun culture associated with their identity, even if some Americans are anti 2nd amendment. Really this video does a good comparison of why the American colonies thrived while the Spanish empire struggled even though they conquered more territory. The Spanish didn’t believe in giving arms to their settlers, instead (because of the $$$ they made from gold they stole or what they got from colonizing different areas that had various profitable resources) they paid Spanish troops to guard the settlements from an attack either from the local natives or any old world countries that might bother the settlement like pirates. This however made the settlers of the Spanish colonies to rely too much on the Spanish empire to provide protection for them, never initiating an independent mindset to protect themselves. It was the opposite for the British and the American Colonies, it simply was cheaper and more efficient to have the colonies know how to arm themselves, both for protection and to hunt. This played a part of American Colonies to innately not to rely on an Empire that was an ocean away and to solve as many problems in their local area without bother the Brits. Until the 1760’s, most of the American Colonies never rebelled and had extreme loyalty to their mother country, the Brits didn’t understand that their inferior attitude was that final push for Americans to just seek to be independent altogether, with or without the Whig’s support. There was an olive treaty sent to parliament and King George III from the American Colony Congress to plead anyway to find an agreement so the tensions didn’t develop more, and the reply they got back by order of Parliament and the King is that everyone in Congress and fighting to defend themselves from the Brits were seen as traitors to the crown. THAT was what pushed the American colonialists to become an independent nation.
The American Revolution was an economic war. The Colonies relied upon 'Colonial Script' as a currency and had a better standard of living than in England. Colonial Script was a very stable currency with no devaluation through inflation. Colonial Script had underlying assets to support the represented value. George III then required all commerce in the Colonies to occur in Pound Sterling. With control of the currency, the lifeblood of any economy, the Crown was able to extract wealth from the Colonies in much the same way that the Federal Reserve is able to extract wealth from the present economy. All of the other reasons for the war are legitimate, but are subordinate to the economic causes of the war. This is the case for nearly all wars that have occurred throughout history.
33:41 In a sense, you don't see any of the 3 as the correct form of government but as the correct system for the parts that are available. Given we in America have no militia but a standing army and multiple police forces, own less and might have lower literacy rates (plus with the internet requiring an advanced form of Literacy) we should slide back into a monarchy until those 3 criteria improve? In a vain of how rome had a war time dictator to rule while a campaign was going on.
I know about Concord, Lexington and Boston because of Fallout 4 :D Usually this topic doesn't interest me, I find warfare in this period to be a bit dull.
5:45 This time I call BS. Calling lefties liberals is something I've only heard Americans do, and especially on the right. And which took me a while to get used to, as someone from Europe :P
Rudyard is the only guy under 40 who knows anything about the American War of Independence. There are no women under 40 who know anything about it. Unfortunately, if you have no sense of your past, there's a good chance you struggle figuring out where you want to go. (By the ancient definitions, America is no longer a democracy. Neither are a lot of other places. They aren't monarchies, either.)
11:36 not an accurate map on the spanish side, the spanish were already well into california and even penetrated into Alaska. And well saying there were more peoples than "in the rest of america combined" needs clearing that you are referring to the US and not the continent because what had the most population clearly was hispanic america
He keeps saying "people" don't care about history that much. It would be better to say Gen Z Americans, or Americans. The audience for this channel includes plenty of people who are not American or whose parents were not born here.
To be fair to Yarvin, his take on the Am. Rev. is concurrent to yours; thwt it was Vietnam in the 1700s. A cold civil war at home, and a hot one abroad. That if Britain had used its full might, it could've conveivably beaten the Americans. He does agree that the American Founders were actually the Athenians we mythologize them to be, so America both deserved and earned the victory. I'm sure you two would find plenty to disagree with on finer points, but your styles are too similar and even if I like both of you, i doubt i could listen to a discussion between you both!
africa's population tripled in my lifetime and i'm not even 40 yet. i think you'll be okay for calling english people rabbits for going 10x in like 200 years.
@@aasifazimabadi786 wich will never happen, fbi is closely watching and probably infiltrated any militia remotely organized ready to pull cointelpro kind of bs and most people with 1776 III bumper stickers know deep down what happened when some or many people try to rebel against the fed, they get wiped in a civil war
I know you're not here to hock other peoples' books, but could you please try to show them to the screen for a second longer? Love his history videos but he needs to work on organizational skills and presentation.
Like most Americans you focus too much on France and forget the Dutch impact on the early development of the US. Because of that the US industrialized earlier than France because of that. Americans never understand the bad influence of Paris on the world up to today.
Correction: the French people in Quebec supported the revolution. Gen. Arnold succesfully occupied Quebec for many months, but the British sent a large fleet with reinforcements, and he was unable to hold it, even with the support of the French. After the war however the British gave the French in Quebec lots of rights they lacked. So in 1812 the French in Quebec were neutral or even opposed to the US invasion of Canada.
Benedict Arnold has a whole justified villain arc by how he was treated 😅
@@stevecooper7883 Yes, and the main reason he went from treason to espionage is because of corruption in the colonial congress. Example: his Quebec expedition was seriously hampered in reaching its start date and poorly provisioned for exactly that reason. Had he launched his attack the month or even two earlier that was possible and been adequately provisioned he might well have succeeded. Two months of longer occupation of Quebec might well have meant Quebec rebels trained and willing to fend off the British. Instead, he gets there, sets up shop and just a couple months later having barely arrived the British have sent reinforcements: which makes me ask whether there were British spies in the colonial camp reporting on Gen. Arnold's movements.
"If you can rebel, rebel!"
This is when I remembered that Rudyard is Irish.
Hibernia delenda est.
@@deriznohappehquite 🤮
The Irish have one of the bravest and proudest traditions of rebellion. For 800 straight years, they have fought tooth and nail against the Brits, often to their own decimation; just fueling the fire for the next generation to take up arms. They are unparalleled in this regard.
Great video. I will, however, posit one thing. What actually did make Washington a good General was the fact that he realized the War of Independence was a marathon, not a sprint, and thus keeping his army together was more important than winning battles. He won the battles he needed to in order to keep the cause alive, but lost the ones he could afford to in order to keep his army alive. I think Washington contrasts in this way with Robert E. Lee in the Civil War. Lee won way more battles than he lost, but he continuously broke his army down in doing so. His stunning victory at Chancellorsville, for example, cost him more than just Stonewall Jackson, but a considerable number of his brigade and regimental commanders as well. Men who did the direct leading in the field and cannot just be replaced 1 for 1. After Chancellorsville was Gettysburg and we all know how that story ends. Granted, the Civil War was a far more total war, fought as the tide of the Industrial Revolution was gaining it's full momentum, but the point about Washington and Lee still stands.
Yes
Good idea! 😎👍🏻🧠
I’d also say Washington had a good eye to see quality in men that many other generals overlooked and took advantage of the different insight of various opinions to give him some extra options to work with.
The point about the 18th and 19th centuries as the high water mark for intelligence is deeply upsetting
When you look how people spoke in those days it's trippy... I do speak slang. When I see them research papers who claim as time goes by language begins to simplify, I understand some points but I'm not sure the education level that people speak was supposed to deteriorate
It depends on the kind of thinking: it was a better era for political thought partly because thinking and even reading were limited to the elite and there was much less mass input. Trying to do science back then while possible was terribly limited by inadequate instruments. This IS the golden age for engineering AND it will not end expect MORE rather than fewer technical innovations, so much so we are running into hard limits imposed by physic in some fields, which are then immediately bypassed in some other field. You hae ALL the information at YOUR fingertips and if you choose to stick your head up p*rnhub and waste your time with drvgs who is to blame?``
@@QuizmasterLaw This is utter cope nonsense. I used to believe this fully but the truth is the internet is not free and you really can't "just do anything you want" with it. Also, some things are just not well done on the internet and must be done in person and in the flesh. The world does not revolve solely around the internet or mass communication, as powerful as these tools are. The world still happens in person, the internet didn't change that. All it did was make it harder to get people there.
@@algorithmgeneratedanimegir1286 Absolutely no one and nothing is stopping you from taking advantage of the greatest library in world history and its right at your fingertips. No one prevents you from actually reading Plato, Aristotle, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Napoleon, and and and. About 3/4 of all human literature is on the internet and it is not difficult to find. Then too you can learn any foreign language you like any time you actually Make The Effort and then you can learn any other skill too. You have this fantastic knowledge machine staring you in the face and if you are too lazy or undisciplined or stupid to take advantage of it and ramp up your revenue -- whose fault is that?
You just listed a bunch of boring activities
We don’t give the founding fathers enough credit in the modern day for the quantum leap they made for democracy and the world. In the modern day, we often criticize them for not making America democratic enough upon independence.
However, if you looked at the history of democracy and republics leading up to the American revolution, it really did seem like a failed experiment. Athens and its sister republics lost, again, and again. Rome reached the Pax Romana right after dissolving the republic. States like Venice and Holland lost to France and Austria. Poland was losing to Russia, and Cromwell’s republic had burned out quickly in England.
It took serious balls to take the risk the founding fathers did, testing this new radical form of government. The most radical form of this type of government in the history of humanity.
Yet they did it, and did it beautifully, leading to the greatest nation on Earth. Mad respect to them. 🫡
RAAAAAA USA USA USA USA 🇺🇸 🦅 🦅 💥
Correct. Great point
Yep, slander of dead white males is rampant.
@@jjs5191or diluting your vote in a sea of foreigner vote
It's worth trying again. It's normal
Depends how you measure great. You are a fast burn Empire afraid of its own Empire.
I don't think 100 years at the top will mean anything in history, a flash in the pan.
Ive been waiting for this one. I love to listen to these while doing homework.
I'm on a major NeoClassical France Kick lately. I'm thusly convinced that the French Revolution is so complex, nuanced, layered in propaganda historically through moderns, and intriguing that literally all but one summary ever has landed short of the mark to explain it with succinct success and therefore inevitably are doomed to be reductive.
The one exception is more of an opinion and a quote when during Nixon's Overtures to Mao US diplomats asked a Chinese People's Liberation Army General what his opinion on the French Revolution is?
The General answered,
"It's too soon to tell."
Apologies because, I believe I learned this from the Rud Dawg! I think I did. Please take full credit if I don't find out for sure and come back to edit. Don't be too humble. I love the quote.
It was Chou En Lai, not a general.
You forgot the part where George Washington rides into battle on his Dodge Charger, I just wanted to point that out.
Yeah, Rudyard keeps leaving out these key details, like he has a bias. A Ford man, perhaps? 🤔🧐🤷🏼♂️
I’m disappointed that you didn’t bring up George III demanding that his troops put tacks in the colonist’s tea. It really did happen! My source is Bugs Bunny cartoon.
I studied revolutions in school and was so disappointed I didn't learn about the American Revolution. Did the French and Chinese Revolutions instead of the American and Russian Revolutions. Loved it and learned a great deal.
Legally speaking, yes, the colonists absolutely fought for their rights as Britons, thus the right to parliamentary representation. The British argument was that the colonists had indirect virtual representation by the British parliament. This incidentally echos in the idea of representation of the slave population as 3/5 citizens; they had indirect representation. I have never however encountered the idea that the British regarded the Americas as merely conquered territory. These people were in fact British subjects, and as such were sworn to allegiance to the crown, which is why the rebellion was treason.
Funny thing about the 3/5 compromise... 🤔 It's often held up as a great injustice that slaves only counted for 3 fifths.
The southern position was that slaves should count as a full person, so that southern power in Congress would be greater. But that would only be counting as a full person for census purposes - slaves naturally wouldn't be able to vote.
So counting slaves as 3/5s of a person, was actually an attempt to better the lives of slaves by reducing southern power at the federal level. 💁🏻♂️
@@yomomz3921 it's held as an injustice because it wouldn't make sense to want slaves to give you more power because they add to your population but also not want them to be able to vote
Taxed Indians, as opposed to non-taxed Indians, were also apportioned but at 100%; taxed does not however mean naturalized which is a REALLY interesting lurking constitutional argument just waiting for some conspiratist!
Britain: Let's clean up our little island by removing all the malcontents and rabble-rousers. Off to the Americas with you!
Also Britain: They've rebelled, you say? Well, who could have seen that coming?
This is refreshing to get a good summary. For some reason I ran into a channel that did something barbaric, a Brit insisting to fix our country’s problems today we should turn back to, monarch. 😱
The funny thing is that I had to listen to this Brit skim through our country’s origin history from his angle and to make matters worse, I dared look at the comment section 😂 Among the comment section there was a discussion about how the topic came up in the video the Brits don’t actually bother to study this war but only to use it as a template to compare to the French Republic! Tried to explain in this thread that if the Brits actually disciplined themselves to learn more about the American Revolutionary War, they could have prevented losing more colonies from their empire. Of course it’s the Brits, this topic it falls on deaf ears yet they scratch their heads how we managed to become so powerful. Just proves our Founding Fathers were right separating ourselves from the Brits, this is coming from someone who does live them, they are strangely self deprecating prideful bunches lol. At least glad we are on good terms with them though, generally speaking.
Sad that the world has come to "I can say this because it's about my people".
I would absolutely love to see Rudyard do a video comparing the English civil war, the American revolution, the French revolution, and the American civil war. It's a lot of ground, but he already did all of them separately so really "all" that would be required is to connect the dots. If feeling really ambitious toss in the USSR 1917 and maybe the Chinese revolution (Sun Yat Sen, not the Chinese civil war) as a follow on video!
Do yourself a favour and find an actual intellectual. This man has the historical understanding of an undergraduate
@@cerdic6586Yet you are here? 🤨
@@kate2create738 Market research
@@QuizmasterLaw So your research thinks it’s important for you to go to a channel you deem as the intellectual of an undergraduate? And no one else is aloud to do their own research?
The American Revolution had to happen for one reason: God Himself inspired the most enlightened men in the world at the time to organize a government, a more perfect union, to carry out His Will for the American people and for the world to see a model of Constitutional rights that mankind could follow.
You and Yarvin are both topsy-turvey. American revolutionists weren’t (mostly) not wanting the King to tell them what to do, they were opposing Parliament.
Tory parliament tbh the more monarchist segment
The American “Revolution” wasn’t a revolution. No one was trying to overthrow the British government. It was a war of independence. America was just trying to break free. And after the war was over, America won, and England was still in tact. If it had been an actual revolution, and America won, the British government would have been overthrown and America and England would still be part of the same country, just with a different government.
Me when I argument from definition:
And the Colonies in North America had never truthfully been protected by British troops. From the beginning colonists were on their own that is why each colony would have their military person. Such as Myles Standish. Britain would provide a Royal Charter were the king would give a set parcel to a person or entity. What is often not explained is how the British Civil War changed things. The colonies set up prior to the 1640’s had Royal Charters then, with the over throw of the monarchy, all those charters were null and void. And many of the holders of those Charters had lost alll their money and land. The only thing that saved the New England colonies was Oliver Cromwell liked the Puritans. But with the coming of French and Indian War in the 1750’s suddenly British troops appeared in North America.
It’s in reference to republicanism and inherit rights of the individual in relationship to commerce and state.
I think technically it would be more of a civil war, correct me if I'm wrong
Exactly; the US has had no "revolution" and no "civil war". They've had two wars of secession: one successful (USA leaving Britain) and one unsuccessful (CSA leaving USA).
"A History of Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind" has a wonderful fact checked peer review analysis on the reasons for the American Independence War that weren't explained here.
What are they?
@@MeanBeanComedy you can read the book or watch the documentary The Money Masters if you don't like reading to find out :)
The MOST influential aspect of the American Revolution was … they were well established and 3000 miles AWAY !
Home-Field Advantage
You said Morocco was the first country to recognize America. But today is 16 Nov which according to wiki is:
Statia Day is a national holiday celebrated in the Caribbean island of Sint Eustatius, a special municipality of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It celebrates the "First Salute", when Sint Eustatius (known locally as Statia) became the first country to recognize the United States.
I’ve noticed that Rudyard likes to use New Jersey as a reference for how small a place is in his videos! Lol I’ve really enjoyed watching these videos on this channel where he sits in front of a camera and tells you the history; it may not be super high budget but it’s very informative and down to earth. Keep up the hard work!
I mean it is a small territory to use as a comparison lol, Rhode Island might be too small to use so New Jersey is a good alternative.
As a second-generation American (my parents were the immigrants from India), I don’t have ancestors that fought in the American Revolution (1775-81). I do have ancestors that fought in the Sepoy Mutiny (1857-59), known as India’s First War for Independence. Spoiler alert: the Indians lost, and my family decided to surrender to the British just so they could survive. My ancestors were part of the Mughal landed gentry from Delhi, and after being pushed east into Bihar in the aftermath of the Mutiny, they got to be zamindars (tax farmers); that system lasted until the 1950s. The narrative of the American Revolution and the early republic does fascinate me; George Washington could have become King George I of these United States after overthrowing King George III of Great Britain. He, in fact, chose not to be. Even as I child, I found that rather admirable.
My friend and brother, if you or your parents choose to come to our land and become Americans, then our ancestors are you ancestors too. Your ancestors are George Washington and Thomas Jefferson just as much as your ancestors from the beautiful ancient land of India.
Welcome to the family. 😊
@@codecixteen That’s a very beautiful perspective. I wish someone told me that when we would sing “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” every morning at P.S. 173 Queens (NYC) in the 90s. In that song, the lines “Land where my father’s died / Land of the Pilgrims’ pride” made me feel less than welcome. My father, thank God, was and still is alive, and I did not have any biological ancestors thet came on the Mayflower. Somehow, it felt awkward as a Brown boy with a song that took the melody of the British anthem and seemed to primarily discuss White Anglo-Saxon Protestants celebrating their ancestors. My father only arrived by plane at JFK in 1971 on a engineering student visa and my mother (who he went back to India to marry in September 1985) reached there in February 1987, being sponsored by him. I was born the following November. Your interpretation, however, definitely harmonizes things. Thank you.
@@aasifazimabadi786 I’m sorry you felt excluded by that. I’m sure it wasn’t the purpose of that song to make people feel uncomfortable. As you point out, it’s a traditional song that remembers a time when peoples from the British Isles settled here. I think that’s really all it’s meant to do.
We swim in a culture where people who harbor resentment try to spread their bitterness so they feel less lonely, and that can train us without realizing it to see our fellow Americans as something other than that.
Our ancestors built this nation in the hope that all could work together (or apart) to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
When a person comes to this land and says “I will live the American way of life” then they are my family.
@@codecixteen Well said.
@@codecixteen I agree. America is based on ideology rather than ethnicity. I’m white, but also descended from later immigrants, so no blood connections to the revolutionary generation. The nation continues in large part because of immigrants such as the original poster’s father who want to be part of the process. If you’re inspired to live respecting the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution you would likely be a good American
Right on this week's history 102 I got a broken leg need good content to kill time. I'm going to listen to all the what if althist vids and watch next few days I think .😂
32:00 I call this the "Blackthorne from Shogun" doctrine: rebellion is always justified... when you win.
God, I can't tell you how many times I have learned about the American Revolution. Still waiting for that Achaemenian Empire or maybe Persia video. Who knows~
The British government never learns, it's mismanaging again as we speak... Wonder what will be the outcome this time
British? You have been stuck in time man. Just look at their governors
I am looking, that's the point of my comment, read between the lines
The British elites were Royalty (Power by birth right) and the American's were a new bourgeoisie class (Power by merit and hard work). A inevitable clash of ideologies. [leviathan and its enemies reference]
Marx mos def was influenced by the USA civil war and Indians but idk if he drew aristocracy versus bourgeoisie from US rev, he is much more influenced by french civil war i have no idea why marxolol thought red terror and dictatorship to be horrible. ti's why he lost, even contemporary PRC/CCP won't go all in on red terror and dictatorship.
The British were right. It's not as simple as you pretend--the Brits did care about merit and hard work--but birth is a great way to pick a ruler.
@@QuizmasterLawMarxism was actually more inspired by the French Revolution where class restructure was the bases. The Europeans are more focused on class divide, the American Revolution was focused on creating a government that acknowledges human flaws and has buffers to prevent an overrule of tyranny. The French believed that flaws can be fixed, that perfection was obtainable. Besides the aristocracy they targeted religion because Christianity was honestly about the dark side humanity can possess and wanted that basic knowledge to be eliminated so the Jacobins could have the excuse to be authoritarian.
The Founding Fathers meanwhile had a respect for religion, it was a nation full of people whose ancestors fled Europe to escape religious persecution. They also learn from the multiple wars in the recent centuries were involved with a pious leader that became sanctimonious to dominate other faiths and understood religion was needed to guide the people spiritually but there had to be a separation of power from politics.
I could go on, but a lot of Europeans THINK they understood the Americans were radical in overthrowing the monarchy when really the real goal was to not be ruled by a regime that didn’t listen to the people and degrade them to second class citizens. Many Americans were not happy with King George III and is the most loathed monarchy to Americans of all generations. But there was a mixed response to how the French Revolution went down, as the Americans were friends with the King and Queen of France, and the new republic of France was mystified in the lack of warmth from the early American government. The French might have just retained their king as a pawn to then treason him and his wife to the guillotine, but Americans actually once had loyalty to the British crown believing they were British subjects, therefore less of them were on board with over throwing the monarchy like that.
The Americans also had an independent spirit to never rely on others to fix there problems if possible, an idea that greatly contrast most Europeans where it was always those in government to provide and look after their subjects. Themes that match more Marxist ideas than the core reasons the American colonies rebelled. I think there is little discussion how the new American government had changed certain structures, other key components is that there was some structures that retained from the influence of the British that I believe was the most vital reason why the brand new country of the USA didn’t go to anarchy or became overruled by tyrants is because they still had British Common Laws that impacted a harmony in this very young country. Meanwhile the French loathes anything British and would have been appalled to be influenced by British culture.
Therefore, if we compare this to a family tree but of governments, the US would be a branch breaking off from the British Empire, specifically the English, the French monarchy would have died but the Republic of France branched off the French monarchy yet had some influence from the American Revolution war. Marx was a German that never really travel to the US to get a better perspective and understanding of the American Revolution, but he had access to France and French philosophers.
*Plus we have a different war called the American Civil war, had NOTHING to do with Marx’s inspiration to his philosophy.
Need to watch “The Patriot” now.
Based on the Swamp Fox Francis Marion btw
Could you do a history of mathematical ideas, and their implications by region?
Great work BTW - thank you!
I see a lot of America in old Rhodesia. We should have never stabbed them in the back.
American elites Just hate White people
40:18 “the Constitutional Congress”. I think you meant Continental Congress
It has been the British government in exile, so far.
Rudyard for President
At 41:36 ish you made a comment that the Founding Fathers A) believed in the common good & B) spoke very bluntly about a list of topics like "class, sex or race..." What would it take for an elaboration on this idea?
Great Video, thanks guys!
You should drive down to Gettysburg and do a video on that 😅
Love ur shit dude. Do you think I might be helpful to write out some notes before you do one of these so that you can pull on specific facts directly. I feel like this would really up the content to make real authority rather than a passing podcast.
Spanish colonies had self-government in their own way, there were local “parliament” that governed with the militar leader assigned by the monarchy.
Is not that simple
Bernardo Galvez lead a successful year long campaign out of new orleans and defeated the British in 4 significant actions at the time of the american revolution leading an army that spoke 3 languages
For the individual revolution please make a more than one. That topic is so huge.
This is one of your better videos
I didn't watch the debate, i watched this
The apex of EASTERN Pennsylvania's importance.
The truth is that The Proclamation of 1763 was a temporary thing because the British forbade the colonists to go westward until the British develop a plan on how are they going to divide the land west of the Appalachian Mountains but the Colonists were land hungry and wanted to go west quickly, the British also needed taxes to pay their territories they gained from the French and Indian War and the Founding Fathers were rich White men who didn't want to pay taxes and the Colonies/US won the war by luck.
How cool would it be if he teamed up with the guy from Useful Chats. The left brain and right brain unite!
Pigs will fly before that
Useful charts is dishonest. I used to watch him until I saw it. He lies with stats like all statisticians. Charts are just visual stats. I’ve seen times I disagree with or times whatif is wrong but I’ve never seen him say and double down on something he knows is untrue. You can be wrong. And we can disagree. I don’t let people knowingly lie to me and take my time and energy. Pretty sure whatif has seen that as well so the team up won’t happen. Successful people don’t waste time and energy on unfruitful endeavors.
Useful Charts is a delusional fake ***.
@@selfprojects1953 dishonest about what?
No!
YAY. A SHURE SM7B ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ ❤AT LAST. THANKS.
nice cool video
The first secular democracy on earth, and also the first federation; a limited government of laws, not men, in an age of absolutism, monarchy, personal rule, and religious tyranny.
When the American republic appeared on the stage it inaugurated "A New Order of the Ages" (Novus Ordo Saeclorum), and that is not an exaggeration.
Since then, tyrannies in various forms, whether styled as monarchies, theocracies, and dictatorships, fall one after another as the American model of government extends its reach to country after country. Today governments modelled after the principles of separation of powers, federalism, democracy, and rule of law are the majority of governments, but there was a time when there was only one such government.
Like I said it's a global liberation war.
btw the US government was designed to prevent a counter-revolution. Believe me, I red teamed the living shit out of revolution in the USA in the 1990s and early 2000s.
* nondenominational
@@longiusaescius2537 At the federal level definitely secular. Most states had an official religion, at least as colonies, maryland was the sole catholics state, rhode island was officially non-confessional, they had no state religion at all. It's also worth pointing out there were e.g. Jewish people living in the USA at the time of independence, basically Dutch merchant Jews. You want to imagine a religious republic but that is exactly what they did NOT want because they were literal refugees from Europe's insane genocidal religious wars. The federation certainly was to have no role in religion, and aside from officiall non-confessional Rhode Island most of the colonies / states that had an official religion also had de fact or even de jure recognitions of religious freedoms for other religions. This is really different from the bullshit lies that xtians have been spreading for at least 50 years now claiming, entirely falsely, that the USA is a christian nation. have i mentioned all those Indians and Slaves? Because while some were "praying Indians" and christianized others were not yet, if taxed were apportioned into the census. The early USA was much more a racial state than a religious one.
@@QuizmasterLaw Christian indians and slaves existed but basically your 3 exceptions are non American
@@QuizmasterLaw well US is/was a christian nation, the vast majority of the people from colonial time until few decades ago were christians. nation = people (im not talking about the government)
@@feliciaf8 Yes, that is *basically* true but like I already pointed out there were in fact exceptions, Jewish people most notably to you but also Indians, even the occasional Moslems. However, unlike the European theocratic monarchies there was no national religion like Anglicism in England, Catholicism in France and Spain or Eastern Orthodoxy in Russia. Instead there were Anglicans Presbyters who had their respective national churches but also Catholics and Quakers and Amish and Mennonites and so on. The USA has never had a national religion. Some of the colonies did, but at last Rhode Island was officially non-confessional. The federal principle of no national religion soon found its way into the states. I guess I should look up when the various states abolished their official state religions. But even in those jurisdictions that had an official religion there were also various legal and practical guaranties of religious freedom, some constitutional, others by ordinary legislation, and still others by local ordnance or even just no regulations at all but the customary practice was entirely clear that there was and is a constitutional right to one's own religious confession. This is very different both from the European continent these REFUGEES FLED FROM and the neofascist "christian" bullshit being spewed by murrican theocrats since around 1970. No, America is NOT a christian nation. That is what we fled from!
Islamists are just the latest iteration of religious wars.
How do we win now though?
27:18 true, taxes back then were harder to track, nowadays it's largely W-2s and that's just too easy paper for the government to pass up so taxes for everyone.
my great grand papi was a mad man AND SO AM I RAWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Edmund Burke also nails the French Revolution as its politics.
A better representation of Yarvin's argument might be that the British gave the Americans too much freedom from the crown to begin with and then, due to pro-American whig influence, took only a weak oppositional stance to the revolutionary sentiment in America when a more appropriate response would have been to crush the revolutionaries with the full strength of the empire and install pro-crown leadership. It's not so much that he sees the Americans as the "bad guys", rather it's a criticism of the British whigs who he believes cost Britain greatly by essentially supporting the American revolutionaries over their own country.
@@hologramjosh the British were not interested in going out conquering the land, establishing population centers, etc… they were more interested in here is a place you can go and you might make a go of it or you may be dead in a few weeks. Also as things happened with the English Civi War and both its aftermath and then the re- established monarchy and no let’s find a new monarch things were not stable for quite some time. But I do agree by the time things were settled in England the colonies had been in their own for a long time. I also think a hundred years later and Britain would have said “ great welcome to the Commonwealth”!
There’s a video I can’t remind that did a partial good take of explaining how Americans have this gun culture associated with their identity, even if some Americans are anti 2nd amendment. Really this video does a good comparison of why the American colonies thrived while the Spanish empire struggled even though they conquered more territory.
The Spanish didn’t believe in giving arms to their settlers, instead (because of the $$$ they made from gold they stole or what they got from colonizing different areas that had various profitable resources) they paid Spanish troops to guard the settlements from an attack either from the local natives or any old world countries that might bother the settlement like pirates. This however made the settlers of the Spanish colonies to rely too much on the Spanish empire to provide protection for them, never initiating an independent mindset to protect themselves.
It was the opposite for the British and the American Colonies, it simply was cheaper and more efficient to have the colonies know how to arm themselves, both for protection and to hunt. This played a part of American Colonies to innately not to rely on an Empire that was an ocean away and to solve as many problems in their local area without bother the Brits.
Until the 1760’s, most of the American Colonies never rebelled and had extreme loyalty to their mother country, the Brits didn’t understand that their inferior attitude was that final push for Americans to just seek to be independent altogether, with or without the Whig’s support. There was an olive treaty sent to parliament and King George III from the American Colony Congress to plead anyway to find an agreement so the tensions didn’t develop more, and the reply they got back by order of Parliament and the King is that everyone in Congress and fighting to defend themselves from the Brits were seen as traitors to the crown. THAT was what pushed the American colonialists to become an independent nation.
I just love intro music
I thought he said "it was like dropping Radatz on an isolated island"😅
You forgot the British prison ships in New York Harbor.
Or maybe I missed that part.
Very. Good vid
I would love to have a conversation and a smoke
THE FACT THAT HE DIDNT CHOOSE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION GOT ME ON THAT 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
The American Revolution was an economic war. The Colonies relied upon 'Colonial Script' as a currency and had a better standard of living than in England. Colonial Script was a very stable currency with no devaluation through inflation. Colonial Script had underlying assets to support the represented value.
George III then required all commerce in the Colonies to occur in Pound Sterling. With control of the currency, the lifeblood of any economy, the Crown was able to extract wealth from the Colonies in much the same way that the Federal Reserve is able to extract wealth from the present economy.
All of the other reasons for the war are legitimate, but are subordinate to the economic causes of the war. This is the case for nearly all wars that have occurred throughout history.
The colonists when it was time to be revolting.
Rudyard, your mic is a little hot. Turn down input or put on a limiter, please.
the fact you missed the fact GW had HORSE SLAVE TEETH is crazy its the best crazy fact
Nice pfp
@@longiusaescius2537 thanks my wife made it for me about 10 years ago
33:41 In a sense, you don't see any of the 3 as the correct form of government but as the correct system for the parts that are available. Given we in America have no militia but a standing army and multiple police forces, own less and might have lower literacy rates (plus with the internet requiring an advanced form of Literacy) we should slide back into a monarchy until those 3 criteria improve? In a vain of how rome had a war time dictator to rule while a campaign was going on.
I think its less of a choice and more falling dominoes. It'll happen or it won't. You'll just get a choice to lean I to fate or struggle against it
More like Brazil or South Africa actually
You should do a video on Israel.
im amongst the sanest people in california. i see a new vid by rudyard lynch, i watch it.
I know about Concord, Lexington and Boston because of Fallout 4 :D Usually this topic doesn't interest me, I find warfare in this period to be a bit dull.
You don’t have family or roots that go back that far? It’s interesting to me because it’s personal
Wait wait wait...where is Charles Lee?
At home, waiting for another opportunity.
Philadelphia/PA peaked in the late 1800s/early 1900s, not late 1700s.
Hell ya
Didn't the first US Census count a total population of about 3.5 million?
When did Jefferson say it would take 1,000 years to settle America?
I always forget the other dude is here.
5:45 This time I call BS. Calling lefties liberals is something I've only heard Americans do, and especially on the right. And which took me a while to get used to, as someone from Europe :P
Rudyard is the only guy under 40 who knows anything about the American War of Independence. There are no women under 40 who know anything about it. Unfortunately, if you have no sense of your past, there's a good chance you struggle figuring out where you want to go.
(By the ancient definitions, America is no longer a democracy. Neither are a lot of other places. They aren't monarchies, either.)
I feel like you could be a political adviser to whoever usurps power in the US eventually.
What music do you use in your intro? It sounds vaguely Indian but I can't put a finger on it
Sounds like some Bronze Age shi
Skillex
Minions signing to mysterious exotic music
@@shwtmDLX1 Somewhere eastern but not far east
The coup in America happened in 1963
First
America _Hassss_ had a regime-change, Rudyard...
(What do you think that 'JFK-unpleasantness' was...??)
Rudyard I really do love you, not in a creepy clingy way.
Some serious echoes of Burke in this video.
Sneed
Chuck
Old regieme ization: Old headization
Im a distant relative of John Adams
Do one on the French Revolution!
11:36 not an accurate map on the spanish side, the spanish were already well into california and even penetrated into Alaska.
And well saying there were more peoples than "in the rest of america combined" needs clearing that you are referring to the US and not the continent because what had the most population clearly was hispanic america
Were they?
102, 102, 102, 102, 102!
He keeps saying "people" don't care about history that much. It would be better to say Gen Z Americans, or Americans. The audience for this channel includes plenty of people who are not American or whose parents were not born here.
He’s only addressing the people who actually matter. Americans, If you’re parents weren’t born here maybe go back home
To be fair to Yarvin, his take on the Am. Rev. is concurrent to yours; thwt it was Vietnam in the 1700s. A cold civil war at home, and a hot one abroad. That if Britain had used its full might, it could've conveivably beaten the Americans. He does agree that the American Founders were actually the Athenians we mythologize them to be, so America both deserved and earned the victory.
I'm sure you two would find plenty to disagree with on finer points, but your styles are too similar and even if I like both of you, i doubt i could listen to a discussion between you both!
africa's population tripled in my lifetime and i'm not even 40 yet. i think you'll be okay for calling english people rabbits for going 10x in like 200 years.
To quote Alex Jones, “The answer to 1984 is 1776!”
@@aasifazimabadi786 wich will never happen, fbi is closely watching and probably infiltrated any militia remotely organized ready to pull cointelpro kind of bs and most people with 1776 III bumper stickers know deep down what happened when some or many people try to rebel against the fed, they get wiped in a civil war
Who did the Iroquois genocide? This was unclear. 44:01 You said this was a very important war. What was this war called?
Hurons, among others.
Rudy..... we r worried about u out here
I pray for rude every day, I love him like a cousin
@@zakadams762are you from Alabama?
Way too much Indian territory. I would have been angry about that too
Please cover indian revolution
I know you're not here to hock other peoples' books, but could you please try to show them to the screen for a second longer? Love his history videos but he needs to work on organizational skills and presentation.
Like most Americans you focus too much on France and forget the Dutch impact on the early development of the US. Because of that the US industrialized earlier than France because of that. Americans never understand the bad influence of Paris on the world up to today.
Are you Dutch?
butthurt dutchman sooo butthurt that his american masters dont give him attention so he resorts to insult france 😢🥺
Bump
5:07 the American revolution came close to falling into autocracy during adams' presidency.