One aspect I really enjoyed about this video was the brief recapping of several conflicts the colonial USA add the United Kingdom were involved in together, or that affected one another. An aspect that should be covered with more depth in general in my view. Underrated and interesting events which don’t get talking about enough.
Benjamin Franklin - from 1776 the play; Franklin arguing with John Dickinson about Independence; John Dickinson: Fortunately, the people maintain a higher regard for their mother country. Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Higher, certainly, than she feels for them. Never was such a valuable possession so stupidly and recklessly managed, than this entire continent by the British crown. Our industry discouraged, our resouces pillaged... worst of all our very character stifled. We've spawned a new race here, Mr. Dikinson. Rougher, simpler; more violent, more enterprising; less refined. We're a new nationality. We require a new nation.
Finally! A well-balanced look at the AWI. I’ve long had the feeling that the British block on westward expansion at the expense of native Americans was a stronger driver for the colonists than taxes on tea. But that is usually quietly brushed under the carpet as it doesn’t sit as well with the fighting tyranny myth. Subscribed!
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 moving westward was a breach of the treaties that had been signed with the Native American tribes and driven by greed. But I guess that’s always been the American way.
@adamrodaway1074 The Americans had been vital in driving the French out of that territory. Defeating the French and their Indian allies who had fought against the Americans and British. Then the British, without consulting any Americans, made such a treaty after the war. Taking away any major rewards that would have come to Americans from the victory (the reason many risked and gave their lives). So no, many did not have any practical respect for Britain's treaty. Indian tribes and nations had fought each other ever since the first peoples arrived on the land. Cry and cope about it all you want. Americans simply joined the game, while also being more united and effective long-term.
The rich planter class in the South and the rich merchant class of New England caused the conflict. The subsistence farmers could care less about breaking away from the mother country.
@@edwardcricchio6106 Blame the rich! Im in no mood to read the entire declaration of independence to you ! From top to bottom I mean, not just the preamble. Also the bill of rights specifically corrected the Brit abuses that angered the colonists far more than any tax - Especially pay attention to the 1st, 4th, and 6th. What I see today is damn Caine-Acedemia and obscurantist professors turns students like you, into hammers; any trace of virtue and honor becomes a nail. Your comment belies your understanding and you sound to me like a bitter tool. You are probably a decent fellow but you're academia manipulated and mislead you, led you by the nose, to resent the Colonists and dare say the revolution is about avarice. Man if your comment was made 200 years ago, youd get your ass kicked and run out of town cuz people did not tolerate calmny and public insults
My understanding is that it was mostly between Loyalists and Rebels in the Northern Colonies. The Southern Plantation owners were happy so long as they had their holdings (of land and slaves) and their comfortable lifestyle, regardless of whoever was in power. The threat to that lifestyle was what helped start the US Civil War.@@edwardcricchio6106
I think this was a good video in some ways, but I feel like there were a few things which were either strangely phrased or not really elaborated on enough. In particular, I think the point of calling the American Revolution the first civil war is not as much in reference to their conflict with the British (though that was part of it), but the conflict between the revolutionaries and the many loyalists within the colonies. There was a significant proportion of the population which had no interest in independence (John Adams estimated 1/3) and often fought their fellow Americans during the conflict. I think your points regarding tension between Americans and British military officials over their various military ventures holds some credence, especially regarding Louisburg, but I feel like it is leaving some stuff out. First of all, it is sort of bizarre that you use this generalized term of American or colonist when referring to tension, when often there was hardly such a unity at that time in the colonies. The resentment that you mention regarding Louisburg, seems to be, at least in anything I have read, more of a New Englander phenomenon (as it was largely their militiamen from Boston who were employed), rather than a general reaction in the colonies. I also find it rather suspect that the military disagreements during the War of Spanish Succession had any real relevance to the American Revolution half a century later. I also regret that you routinely disregard the gains that Britain did make on the continent which were received with jubilation in America. For instance, while the overall Canadian invasion plan failed during the War of Spanish Succession, you omit the cession of Acadia. Similarly, English colonists in the Americas, were, in my understanding, similarly pleased with the later conquest of Canada during the Seven Years' War (even if they would later come to loathe the Quebec Acts). You routinely insinuate that all of the wars America was involved in due to British leadership were never in American self-interest, but I don't think that's really true. For instance, the war aim of securing the slave trade during the war with Spain heavily benefited the Americans and was roundly supported there. I think you are presenting a rather one-sided account by only focusing on the events which strained relations while omitting the many events which effected the cross-Atlantic relationship more positively. Lastly, I really wish you would provide any sources for your claims in this video. My best suspicion is that you are drawing heavily from Carr's Seeds of Discontent, but there is really no way for me to know. If you are, that would be a disappointment as it is a highly specious source.
Very good points! When I first wrote my script I included examples of British government and the colonists working well together and having positive experiences as well as the different regions mindsets toward revolution but I felt like the more I went down those paths the more bloated the video became. Mainly I wanted to give a concise summary of some of the lesser known tensions leading up to revolution. As for sources, that was not my source I actually have no read that. My 3 biggest sources were “Almost a Miracle” by John Ferling “For the Common Defense” by Allan Millett “The British are Coming” by Rick Atkinson Anyway thanks for watching! I do appreciate the feedback!
@@contexthistorychannel Thanks for the reply, and I really appreciate you listing your sources. I'll happily subscribe knowing you've done your due diligence. Especially since, even though I had some things I wanted to point out, I do agree that there is a lot to be gained in looking at the origins of the American Revolution beyond the ten-year timeframe that normally seems to be discussed. In that sense, I think you did a great job listing and explaining some of these lesser known events and conflicts.
Thanks appreciate to have you as a subscriber! I definitely should have put my sources in the description going to add that, I appreciate you pointing that out! That’s what I was envisioning when I started making this video is, talking about underrated tensions since I feel like a lot of people I’ve talked to think everything was going good then from 1760 it just rapidly declined
Excellent. The illustrations leave much to be desired, but whata' gonna' do seeing as this is UA-cam and folks expect to see graphics. I've taught US history for several years and have never felt I could adequately explain the American War of Independence, except in terms of a pesky adolescent daughter coming of age and quarreling with her mother -.your explanation, more or less. But you provide important details that help one to make much better sense of it all. Something I've told my students is that there are really no villains vs good guys here, just something happening that had to happen.
Oh yeah I’m aware I’m not great graphically haha but I’m working on it! Hopefully I can get to the place where the graphics can tell the story in their own right. Thank you for watching! Definitely agree with heroes and villains comment, I feel like a lot of people are looking for “the bad guy or side” in a conflict
I have my own idea of the 2 causes of the American Revolution. 1] After the 7-Years war England wanted to pay down most of the increase in the national debt [that it had had in every year since1694]. To do this it had to run a Gov. surplus. England raised taxes on the Colonies and reduced spending to have that surplus, it did the same in England. Modern Monetary Theory economists say that by definition, whenever the Gov. sector of the economy is in surplus, the non-Gov. sector must be in deficit. If the surplus & deficit go on for a few years, then a recession always happens. So, there was a recession in the Colonies. 2] Straus and Howe have put forth the theory that history goes around in 4-generation cycles. The recession above happened by chance when the cycles were going into a 4th Turning. For example, Fourth Turnings are the Glorious Revolution (1688), the American Revolution, the American Civil War, and the Great Depression & WWII. . . . WWI didn't coincide with a 4th Turning so it was not as important as a turning point in history.
"England" and "Britain" are not interchangeable. England and Scotland were politically joined together in 1707, so any references to the country after that should be "Britain" or "Great Britain" . Otherwise, I'm going to keep calling your country "Wyoming" for no apparent reason!
That war was started because of the greed of certain people in the American colonies who did not want to pull their weight in contributing to the cause and their upkeep and just wanting to maximise their own personal gain. Compared to the folk back home the colonists had it easy and were not taxed as hard as they were in Britain , When Britain said its time you pulled your weight like the rest of us certain sections within the colony decided to cause greif. They turned to our mortal enermies at that time France and Spain and conspired to break away. Most British were still loyal to the crown and after the war was lost most left for Canada. The other thing America gos on about how they beat the British militarily........ this is not true It was combined Threat from the French and Spanish to using this situation to strike at the Homeland itself that made the British decide to cut these rebels off and not risk the whole empire to be destroyed all because of these rebels.
No taxation without representation. Although many Americans still saw themselves as culturally British to an extent, they had also become absorbed and shaped by their individual colonies/state cultures. British infringement upon colonial governments and policies had become too alien, quite arguably detrimental, insufferable in tone, and an all-around hindrance. France and Spain would not have been a sufficient threat if Americans hadn’t been effectively and continually mobilizing in and around the east of the continent. If Americans had it one battles and hadn’t continued the fight it would’ve been over. That goes for American victories as well.
The Rebels stopped being British the moment they started to conspire with our age old enemies France right after we had fought a long and financially costly war to defend the colonies frim becoming French.@@robertortiz-wilson1588 . It was not there place to demand no taxarion without representation . The feasability of the Americans sending representatives everytime a British parliament was called would of been impossible, . Once a parliament was called the call would have to be put on to a ship that would take 4 months to get to america and assuming the representative was already waiting at the docks with a ship ready to take him to england another 4 months back , the parliament would be waiting 8 or so months just for the Americans to show up and what happens if the parliament was for something like what gto do about France about to invade ? then the American representive would have to go home another 4 months . parliaments were called about 20 times a year . That is why colonoes gad governors ruling them .
Well done. One aspect I always suspected played an important role was that the American leaders at the time were well educated, accomplished and wealthy but treated by England as second class citizens. They didn’t receive the privileges and stature of aristocracy that a non-colonial would have. Had those American leaders been content or placated, there’d be no movement to separate.
@@contexthistorychannel Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I learned that the Boston Tea Party was the result of a tax cut, not an increase, which undercut the smuggling operations of certain American leaders.
I think you didn't mention the colonies partnering up with an Absolute Monarchy in France to rebel from the the Brits who had saved them from the Absolute Monarchy a decade earlier.
It was interesting hearing the events before the conflict but overall it does seem a little biased against Britain, however the thing about Britain lacking resources is not really true. Britain was self sufficient in food at the time, had hugely abundant coal, (and oil and gas but wouldn't know that for a few hundred years), minerals, tin, iron ore, wool, and wood among other things. Although, that last one would start to become an issue later on, as charcoal was used to make iron and oak was used to build an ever growing navy. Britain was also a major exporter of raw rescources too, especially by the 1800s, which went hand in hand with the Wests Merchantalist trade policies at the time. Britain did need cotton however, as well as spices and silk, tea, sugar, furs, tobacco, and various other luxuries. Slavery was another huge contention the colonists had with Britain too. Especially with the growing abolitionist movement in Britain. I'm kinda surprised this wasn't really touched on. Additionally, the colonists were also into piracy with the Dutch in order to get tea from them instead of the EIC, which was viewed as unwanted competion. Also the Colonists did want the British to protect them from the native tribes. It was one of the reasons Georgia was hesitant to side with the Continental Congress among other things. Also, what was the source for "bad food"? Or was it another stupid crack about Americans who had to have British WW2 rations and came to the conclusion that British food was bad? Later continued by ultra processed US food seeming more "seasoned" than the idea of "bland" British food which again, mainly originated from war time rationing. Which was also an era where British food self sufficiency was at it's worse ironically.
LOVE YOUR COMMENT! Shows you really watched closely and analyzed the info critically! For the resources aspect, I agree with all of those about Britain. I was mainly trying to highlight that since Britain is an island nation they were capped in expansion as compared to more resource rich lands. I can see why it would seem biased against Britain, I wrote this primarily from the perspective of the colonies. Rather than both sides perspectives. I need to do a more full fleshed out version of this video diving into all the reasons the American Revolution started, this video is primarily meant to discuss how it was more than just taxes that concerned colonial leaders. Appreciate you watching and sharing your thoughts!
@@contexthistorychannel Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I didn't really think you'd see mine or reply. Ah okay, I understand. I often see it claimed all over that Europe had absolutely nothing, so plundered everywhere else ect. So I probably jumped the gun a little there. I enjoyed the video overall and would be happy to watch content of the other perspectives. One that's often overlooked is the Loyalist perspective and the other colonists who didn't seem to care either way. Also, as a side note for any war era stuff, there was the Maratha and Mysore wars that were putting an additional strain on Britain. I never see these really talked about and both were lost by Britain as well. I hope your channel continues to grow well in the future, congratulations on getting over 1k subscribers. You can count me as one of them. I shared your Napoleons invasion of Russia video with a friend too so make that 2 subs.
The main reason I started this channel was to talk in depth history with people! I feel like it’s hard to find people in day to day life who want to go into stuff like this, so I’m always checking comments haha Thank you so much for watching and sharing with your friend! I really appreciate it! I do need to do a video on the loyalists and people who didn’t really care about who was in charge, I think the American Revolution has a tendency to be portrayed as a unanimous revolt and that definitely wasn’t the case
@@contexthistorychannelSorry for the late reply. That's pretty rare most UA-camrs seem to ignore them or act very idk arrogant towards comments. So that's really awesome to hear. I enjoy to talk about history stuff and stats and random stuff with one of my friends. It's a shame most people aren't interested at all or think it's boring. There's so many interesting stories and events that happened and affect things today. I particularly like the great divergence and convergence, British, Chinese, and African history and Neolithic era things. No worries, I'm happy I could help. Yes totally agree. I see a lot of comments like that online. It's seen as this glorious thing that was so obvious and everyone did it for freedom and democracy to make the best city on the hill that should rule the world and shape it in it's image sorta things and so on. Idk if that's how it's taught there or something but that's often been what I've seen when online and and discussing things with Americans. Anytime, I should also look more into Indian history in general. Although, I probably should avoid the modern Hindu Nationalist stuff as it's pretty one sided, as most things unfortunately are these days. But the overall history of India is rich and has a lot of interesting things in it. I'll look forward to seeing what you found out in the future about the Maratha and Mysore wars as I still don't fully know all that much myself either as it seems under researched in general.
It was about far more than taxes or gangsta style "respect". Most Colonists were either non-caring or loyalist, only about a third were revolutionaries and often twisted the arm of others to get what they wanted, it wasn't really a totally united ground up rebellion of righteous glory. Also watch Brandon F.'s video on the Boston "Massacre".
So you oversimplify decades worth of resentment over being exploited by the crown for your title, then go on to explain exactly what any intelligent American already knows. The crown exploited the colonies and the colonies didnt appreciate it. What was the point here?
The point was more to focus on the buildup of resentment from lesser known conflicts starting in 1700’s and how they led to the American Revolution. I feel like a lot of American Revolutionary history focuses on 1763-1776 and doesn’t cover those earlier lesser known ones, I do appreciate you watching and the feedback!
I tell you some people just don't know how to watch a video. You sorry assholes always wanna find something negative to say to someone and while this comment isn't upbeat I'm sick of people that don't mean shit in the grand scheme of life trying to down someone that is sharing their insight on whatever it is they are trying to put out to people. Maybe saying good video I don't agree with everything you say and keep it moving.
The name of the channel is literally “Context History”. What did y’all expect? He simply provided more context, not all new information. And he did pretty good too
Meh, pretty simplistic account going on there with more than a few wrong facts and questionable interpretations. When dismissing the notion of the Revolution as a "civil war," the narrator totally misses the fact that the struggle involved brutal internecine fighting between Loyalists and Patriots in theaters like the South and western New York. And the claim that lack of land and resources is what fundamentally drove British imperial expansion in the 17th and 18th cennturies is off base (for example, home islands reserves of iron and coal helped fuel the Industrial Revolution) just isn't solid, even if its true the English/British had been engaged since the Middle Ages looked beyond their shores to obtain products and resources they needed or wanted. And btw, in terms of annoying factual mistakes, the Louisbourg campaign was 1745, NOT 1749, a year after the Austrian Succession War had already ended. And it would take the narrator about 30 seconds online to figure out that Cartagena is not pronounced "cartaGAYna," sheez.. In the end, though, its hard to quibble with the ultinate takeaway that the Revolution was primarily about colonial British Americans wanting to take full control if their collective destiny, taxes being as much a symptom of intra-imperial frictions as a cause.
Appreciate the robust comment! Shows you really watched and thought about the content! The goal of the video was to showcase some of the lesser known tensions leading up to the American Revolution, it was not supposed to be a full comprehensive history of everything that led to the American Revolution. Mainly for people who have not read or studied much of the conflict since their schooling days. I feel like a lot of focus for the lead up to the American Revolution centers around the period of 1763-1775 and I wanted to show there were simmering tensions before then. That's also why I didn't go into the fighting between loyalists and patriots, which I agree definately was important. I framed it as cousin against cousin to help viewers understand the distinct separation that formed between the 13 colonies and the home British Islands over generations. As for factual issues, you are very correct I misspoke and said 1749 instead of 1745 like my script said! That's on me, I am new to doing voice over so still getting used to reading off script like that. I did actually google Cartagena pronunciation..... hahaha I struggled so hard to pronounce it no idea why, but that was somehow the best take I could get of me saying it. I do appreciate your comment! Shows you're passionate about history and thats the type of people I enjoy talking and learning from!
If you find that period of history boring, it could be that you find other eras more interesting to learn about, or you simply don’t have enough knowledge about that span of American history in meaningful depth to have a sufficient grip of fascination.
One aspect I really enjoyed about this video was the brief recapping of several conflicts the colonial USA add the United Kingdom were involved in together, or that affected one another. An aspect that should be covered with more depth in general in my view. Underrated and interesting events which don’t get talking about enough.
Benjamin Franklin - from 1776 the play; Franklin arguing with John Dickinson about Independence;
John Dickinson: Fortunately, the people maintain a higher regard for their mother country.
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Higher, certainly, than she feels for them. Never was such a valuable possession so stupidly and recklessly managed, than this entire continent by the British crown. Our industry discouraged, our resouces pillaged... worst of all our very character stifled. We've spawned a new race here, Mr. Dikinson. Rougher, simpler; more violent, more enterprising; less refined. We're a new nationality. We require a new nation.
Absolutely magnificent quote!
Finally! A well-balanced look at the AWI. I’ve long had the feeling that the British block on westward expansion at the expense of native Americans was a stronger driver for the colonists than taxes on tea. But that is usually quietly brushed under the carpet as it doesn’t sit as well with the fighting tyranny myth. Subscribed!
EXACTLY! Glad to have you as a subscriber!
The colonists and I saw the issue of being prevented from moving westward to improve one’s lot and fighting tyranny as one in the same actually.
That is fighting tyranny Sparky.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 moving westward was a breach of the treaties that had been signed with the Native American tribes and driven by greed. But I guess that’s always been the American way.
@adamrodaway1074 The Americans had been vital in driving the French out of that territory. Defeating the French and their Indian allies who had fought against the Americans and British. Then the British, without consulting any Americans, made such a treaty after the war. Taking away any major rewards that would have come to Americans from the victory (the reason many risked and gave their lives). So no, many did not have any practical respect for Britain's treaty.
Indian tribes and nations had fought each other ever since the first peoples arrived on the land. Cry and cope about it all you want. Americans simply joined the game, while also being more united and effective long-term.
The rich planter class in the South and the rich merchant class of New England caused the conflict. The subsistence farmers could care less about breaking away from the mother country.
so wrong...almost the opposite of truth your comment. whered u learn your history? Caine U?
@@pound7816 tell me why I am wrong?
@@edwardcricchio6106 Blame the rich! Im in no mood to read the entire declaration of independence to you ! From top to bottom I mean, not just the preamble. Also the bill of rights specifically corrected the Brit abuses that angered the colonists far more than any tax - Especially pay attention to the 1st, 4th, and 6th. What I see today is damn Caine-Acedemia and obscurantist professors turns students like you, into hammers; any trace of virtue and honor becomes a nail. Your comment belies your understanding and you sound to me like a bitter tool. You are probably a decent fellow but you're academia manipulated and mislead you, led you by the nose, to resent the Colonists and dare say the revolution is about avarice. Man if your comment was made 200 years ago, youd get your ass kicked and run out of town cuz people did not tolerate calmny and public insults
My understanding is that it was mostly between Loyalists and Rebels in the Northern Colonies. The Southern Plantation owners were happy so long as they had their holdings (of land and slaves) and their comfortable lifestyle, regardless of whoever was in power. The threat to that lifestyle was what helped start the US Civil War.@@edwardcricchio6106
new up and coming channel goes hard
Hell yeah!
I think this was a good video in some ways, but I feel like there were a few things which were either strangely phrased or not really elaborated on enough.
In particular, I think the point of calling the American Revolution the first civil war is not as much in reference to their conflict with the British (though that was part of it), but the conflict between the revolutionaries and the many loyalists within the colonies. There was a significant proportion of the population which had no interest in independence (John Adams estimated 1/3) and often fought their fellow Americans during the conflict.
I think your points regarding tension between Americans and British military officials over their various military ventures holds some credence, especially regarding Louisburg, but I feel like it is leaving some stuff out. First of all, it is sort of bizarre that you use this generalized term of American or colonist when referring to tension, when often there was hardly such a unity at that time in the colonies. The resentment that you mention regarding Louisburg, seems to be, at least in anything I have read, more of a New Englander phenomenon (as it was largely their militiamen from Boston who were employed), rather than a general reaction in the colonies. I also find it rather suspect that the military disagreements during the War of Spanish Succession had any real relevance to the American Revolution half a century later.
I also regret that you routinely disregard the gains that Britain did make on the continent which were received with jubilation in America. For instance, while the overall Canadian invasion plan failed during the War of Spanish Succession, you omit the cession of Acadia. Similarly, English colonists in the Americas, were, in my understanding, similarly pleased with the later conquest of Canada during the Seven Years' War (even if they would later come to loathe the Quebec Acts).
You routinely insinuate that all of the wars America was involved in due to British leadership were never in American self-interest, but I don't think that's really true. For instance, the war aim of securing the slave trade during the war with Spain heavily benefited the Americans and was roundly supported there. I think you are presenting a rather one-sided account by only focusing on the events which strained relations while omitting the many events which effected the cross-Atlantic relationship more positively.
Lastly, I really wish you would provide any sources for your claims in this video. My best suspicion is that you are drawing heavily from Carr's Seeds of Discontent, but there is really no way for me to know. If you are, that would be a disappointment as it is a highly specious source.
Very good points! When I first wrote my script I included examples of British government and the colonists working well together and having positive experiences as well as the different regions mindsets toward revolution but I felt like the more I went down those paths the more bloated the video became. Mainly I wanted to give a concise summary of some of the lesser known tensions leading up to revolution.
As for sources, that was not my source I actually have no read that. My 3 biggest sources were
“Almost a Miracle” by John Ferling
“For the Common Defense” by Allan Millett
“The British are Coming” by Rick Atkinson
Anyway thanks for watching! I do appreciate the feedback!
@@contexthistorychannel Thanks for the reply, and I really appreciate you listing your sources. I'll happily subscribe knowing you've done your due diligence. Especially since, even though I had some things I wanted to point out, I do agree that there is a lot to be gained in looking at the origins of the American Revolution beyond the ten-year timeframe that normally seems to be discussed. In that sense, I think you did a great job listing and explaining some of these lesser known events and conflicts.
Thanks appreciate to have you as a subscriber! I definitely should have put my sources in the description going to add that, I appreciate you pointing that out! That’s what I was envisioning when I started making this video is, talking about underrated tensions since I feel like a lot of people I’ve talked to think everything was going good then from 1760 it just rapidly declined
Excellent. The illustrations leave much to be desired, but whata' gonna' do seeing as this is UA-cam and folks expect to see graphics. I've taught US history for several years and have never felt I could adequately explain the American War of Independence, except in terms of a pesky adolescent daughter coming of age and quarreling with her mother -.your explanation, more or less. But you provide important details that help one to make much better sense of it all. Something I've told my students is that there are really no villains vs good guys here, just something happening that had to happen.
Oh yeah I’m aware I’m not great graphically haha but I’m working on it! Hopefully I can get to the place where the graphics can tell the story in their own right. Thank you for watching! Definitely agree with heroes and villains comment, I feel like a lot of people are looking for “the bad guy or side” in a conflict
I read the title as TEXAS and clicked right away. 💀
😂
I have my own idea of the 2 causes of the American Revolution. 1] After the 7-Years war England wanted to pay down most of the increase in the national debt [that it had had in every year since1694]. To do this it had to run a Gov. surplus. England raised taxes on the Colonies and reduced spending to have that surplus, it did the same in England. Modern Monetary Theory economists say that by definition, whenever the Gov. sector of the economy is in surplus, the non-Gov. sector must be in deficit. If the surplus & deficit go on for a few years, then a recession always happens. So, there was a recession in the Colonies.
2] Straus and Howe have put forth the theory that history goes around in 4-generation cycles. The recession above happened by chance when the cycles were going into a 4th Turning. For example, Fourth Turnings are the Glorious Revolution (1688), the American Revolution, the American Civil War, and the Great Depression & WWII.
. . . WWI didn't coincide with a 4th Turning so it was not as important as a turning point in history.
Fascinating!
"England" and "Britain" are not interchangeable.
England and Scotland were politically joined together in 1707, so any references to the country after that should be "Britain" or "Great Britain" .
Otherwise, I'm going to keep calling your country "Wyoming" for no apparent reason!
Fair point! I did not even think of that, My bad!
What music did you use at 6:00 ?
I have an account with “epidemic sound” so I just type in key words like epic or piano haha not sure of the exact track name though
Very good video. Keep it up!!
Thanks 🙏
This looks like one of those RealLifeLore, Caspian Report, or Wendover videos. How do you only have 39 subscribers?
Just started the channel! Excited to build the channel! If you have any video ideas I’m always looking for some!
excellent.
Thank you!
That war was started because of the greed of certain people in the American colonies who did not want to pull their weight in contributing to the cause and their upkeep and just wanting to maximise their own personal gain. Compared to the folk back home the colonists had it easy and were not taxed as hard as they were in Britain , When Britain said its time you pulled your weight like the rest of us certain sections within the colony decided to cause greif. They turned to our mortal enermies at that time France and Spain and conspired to break away. Most British were still loyal to the crown and after the war was lost most left for Canada. The other thing America gos on about how they beat the British militarily........ this is not true It was combined Threat from the French and Spanish to using this situation to strike at the Homeland itself that made the British decide to cut these rebels off and not risk the whole empire to be destroyed all because of these rebels.
No taxation without representation. Although many Americans still saw themselves as culturally British to an extent, they had also become absorbed and shaped by their individual colonies/state cultures. British infringement upon colonial governments and policies had become too alien, quite arguably detrimental, insufferable in tone, and an all-around hindrance.
France and Spain would not have been a sufficient threat if Americans hadn’t been effectively and continually mobilizing in and around the east of the continent. If Americans had it one battles and hadn’t continued the fight it would’ve been over. That goes for American victories as well.
The Rebels stopped being British the moment they started to conspire with our age old enemies France right after we had fought a long and financially costly war to defend the colonies frim becoming French.@@robertortiz-wilson1588 . It was not there place to demand no taxarion without representation . The feasability of the Americans sending representatives everytime a British parliament was called would of been impossible, . Once a parliament was called the call would have to be put on to a ship that would take 4 months to get to america and assuming the representative was already waiting at the docks with a ship ready to take him to england another 4 months back , the parliament would be waiting 8 or so months just for the Americans to show up and what happens if the parliament was for something like what gto do about France about to invade ? then the American representive would have to go home another 4 months . parliaments were called about 20 times a year . That is why colonoes gad governors ruling them .
There were 27 grievances against King George III. They are in the Declaration of Independence.
True!
Well done.
One aspect I always suspected played an important role was that the American leaders at the time were well educated, accomplished and wealthy but treated by England as second class citizens. They didn’t receive the privileges and stature of aristocracy that a non-colonial would have. Had those American leaders been content or placated, there’d be no movement to separate.
That’s a very great point! I hadn’t though of that but definitely I think it was another underrated aspect
@@contexthistorychannel Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I learned that the Boston Tea Party was the result of a tax cut, not an increase, which undercut the smuggling operations of certain American leaders.
I think you didn't mention the colonies partnering up with an Absolute Monarchy in France to rebel from the the Brits who had saved them from the Absolute Monarchy a decade earlier.
Was it control of real-estate speculations?
That definitely played a part!
Yes.
It was interesting hearing the events before the conflict but overall it does seem a little biased against Britain, however the thing about Britain lacking resources is not really true. Britain was self sufficient in food at the time, had hugely abundant coal, (and oil and gas but wouldn't know that for a few hundred years), minerals, tin, iron ore, wool, and wood among other things.
Although, that last one would start to become an issue later on, as charcoal was used to make iron and oak was used to build an ever growing navy. Britain was also a major exporter of raw rescources too, especially by the 1800s, which went hand in hand with the Wests Merchantalist trade policies at the time.
Britain did need cotton however, as well as spices and silk, tea, sugar, furs, tobacco, and various other luxuries. Slavery was another huge contention the colonists had with Britain too. Especially with the growing abolitionist movement in Britain. I'm kinda surprised this wasn't really touched on.
Additionally, the colonists were also into piracy with the Dutch in order to get tea from them instead of the EIC, which was viewed as unwanted competion.
Also the Colonists did want the British to protect them from the native tribes. It was one of the reasons Georgia was hesitant to side with the Continental Congress among other things.
Also, what was the source for "bad food"? Or was it another stupid crack about Americans who had to have British WW2 rations and came to the conclusion that British food was bad? Later continued by ultra processed US food seeming more "seasoned" than the idea of "bland" British food which again, mainly originated from war time rationing. Which was also an era where British food self sufficiency was at it's worse ironically.
LOVE YOUR COMMENT! Shows you really watched closely and analyzed the info critically!
For the resources aspect, I agree with all of those about Britain. I was mainly trying to highlight that since Britain is an island nation they were capped in expansion as compared to more resource rich lands.
I can see why it would seem biased against Britain, I wrote this primarily from the perspective of the colonies. Rather than both sides perspectives. I need to do a more full fleshed out version of this video diving into all the reasons the American Revolution started, this video is primarily meant to discuss how it was more than just taxes that concerned colonial leaders. Appreciate you watching and sharing your thoughts!
@@contexthistorychannel Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I didn't really think you'd see mine or reply.
Ah okay, I understand. I often see it claimed all over that Europe had absolutely nothing, so plundered everywhere else ect. So I probably jumped the gun a little there.
I enjoyed the video overall and would be happy to watch content of the other perspectives. One that's often overlooked is the Loyalist perspective and the other colonists who didn't seem to care either way.
Also, as a side note for any war era stuff, there was the Maratha and Mysore wars that were putting an additional strain on Britain. I never see these really talked about and both were lost by Britain as well. I hope your channel continues to grow well in the future, congratulations on getting over 1k subscribers. You can count me as one of them. I shared your Napoleons invasion of Russia video with a friend too so make that 2 subs.
The main reason I started this channel was to talk in depth history with people! I feel like it’s hard to find people in day to day life who want to go into stuff like this, so I’m always checking comments haha
Thank you so much for watching and sharing with your friend! I really appreciate it! I do need to do a video on the loyalists and people who didn’t really care about who was in charge, I think the American Revolution has a tendency to be portrayed as a unanimous revolt and that definitely wasn’t the case
I need to research Maratha and Mysore wars! I’ve never actually heard of them! Thanks for the tip! Appreciate learning more things like that
@@contexthistorychannelSorry for the late reply. That's pretty rare most UA-camrs seem to ignore them or act very idk arrogant towards comments. So that's really awesome to hear. I enjoy to talk about history stuff and stats and random stuff with one of my friends. It's a shame most people aren't interested at all or think it's boring. There's so many interesting stories and events that happened and affect things today. I particularly like the great divergence and convergence, British, Chinese, and African history and Neolithic era things.
No worries, I'm happy I could help.
Yes totally agree. I see a lot of comments like that online. It's seen as this glorious thing that was so obvious and everyone did it for freedom and democracy to make the best city on the hill that should rule the world and shape it in it's image sorta things and so on. Idk if that's how it's taught there or something but that's often been what I've seen when online and and discussing things with Americans.
Anytime, I should also look more into Indian history in general. Although, I probably should avoid the modern Hindu Nationalist stuff as it's pretty one sided, as most things unfortunately are these days. But the overall history of India is rich and has a lot of interesting things in it. I'll look forward to seeing what you found out in the future about the Maratha and Mysore wars as I still don't fully know all that much myself either as it seems under researched in general.
The war was over taxes and the Boston massacre. It was about disrespect
It was about far more than taxes or gangsta style "respect". Most Colonists were either non-caring or loyalist, only about a third were revolutionaries and often twisted the arm of others to get what they wanted, it wasn't really a totally united ground up rebellion of righteous glory.
Also watch Brandon F.'s video on the Boston "Massacre".
just read the declaration of Independence
they spell it out
So you oversimplify decades worth of resentment over being exploited by the crown for your title, then go on to explain exactly what any intelligent American already knows. The crown exploited the colonies and the colonies didnt appreciate it. What was the point here?
The point was more to focus on the buildup of resentment from lesser known conflicts starting in 1700’s and how they led to the American Revolution. I feel like a lot of American Revolutionary history focuses on 1763-1776 and doesn’t cover those earlier lesser known ones, I do appreciate you watching and the feedback!
I tell you some people just don't know how to watch a video. You sorry assholes always wanna find something negative to say to someone and while this comment isn't upbeat I'm sick of people that don't mean shit in the grand scheme of life trying to down someone that is sharing their insight on whatever it is they are trying to put out to people. Maybe saying good video I don't agree with everything you say and keep it moving.
It was a bit baity. He made it out to be something different than taxes
The name of the channel is literally “Context History”. What did y’all expect? He simply provided more context, not all new information. And he did pretty good too
Thank you! Appreciate the support!
Meh, pretty simplistic account going on there with more than a few wrong facts and questionable interpretations.
When dismissing the notion of the Revolution as a "civil war," the narrator totally misses the fact that the struggle involved brutal internecine fighting between Loyalists and Patriots in theaters like the South and western New York. And the claim that lack of land and resources is what fundamentally drove British imperial expansion in the 17th and 18th cennturies is off base (for example, home islands reserves of iron and coal helped fuel the Industrial Revolution) just isn't solid, even if its true the English/British had been engaged since the Middle Ages looked beyond their shores to obtain products and resources they needed or wanted.
And btw, in terms of annoying factual mistakes, the Louisbourg campaign was 1745, NOT 1749, a year after the Austrian Succession War had already ended. And it would take the narrator about 30 seconds online to figure out that Cartagena is not pronounced "cartaGAYna," sheez..
In the end, though, its hard to quibble with the ultinate takeaway that the Revolution was primarily about colonial British Americans wanting to take full control if their collective destiny, taxes being as much a symptom of intra-imperial frictions as a cause.
Appreciate the robust comment! Shows you really watched and thought about the content!
The goal of the video was to showcase some of the lesser known tensions leading up to the American Revolution, it was not supposed to be a full comprehensive history of everything that led to the American Revolution. Mainly for people who have not read or studied much of the conflict since their schooling days. I feel like a lot of focus for the lead up to the American Revolution centers around the period of 1763-1775 and I wanted to show there were simmering tensions before then.
That's also why I didn't go into the fighting between loyalists and patriots, which I agree definately was important. I framed it as cousin against cousin to help viewers understand the distinct separation that formed between the 13 colonies and the home British Islands over generations.
As for factual issues, you are very correct I misspoke and said 1749 instead of 1745 like my script said! That's on me, I am new to doing voice over so still getting used to reading off script like that. I did actually google Cartagena pronunciation..... hahaha I struggled so hard to pronounce it no idea why, but that was somehow the best take I could get of me saying it.
I do appreciate your comment! Shows you're passionate about history and thats the type of people I enjoy talking and learning from!
American history is boring from 1492-present everything before 1492 is cool though
America didn't exist then?
I'm pretty sure the continen was there even back then.
@@kriegenjoyer6913
No technically it didn't but do I give a shit about minor details like that.... no...
If you find that period of history boring, it could be that you find other eras more interesting to learn about, or you simply don’t have enough knowledge about that span of American history in meaningful depth to have a sufficient grip of fascination.
Why use profanity? Please stop.
What?
If words effect you so strongly, don't watch UA-cam.
I’m sorry but the profanity is used like salt and pepper and not over used and only used as an emphasis.
No, that was only a trigger
Yep! The fuse was lit long before