Why The American Revolution Succeeded (And Why So Many Other Revolutions Fail)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 тра 2024
- Why did the American Revolution succeed when so many others failed?
Got a "why" you want answered? Give us your questions here:
forms.fillout.com/t/3V1uTMRJwXus
~
Get new episodes in your inbox once a week: thewhyminutes.com/subscribe/
/ whyminutes
/ thewhyminutes
Host: / nickfreitasva
![ПОЛНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЭКЗОРЦИЗМА [Топ Сикрет]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBySr6Bt0B8/mqdefault.jpg)
As an Australian I want to tell all Americans reading this, you really don't know or appreciate how lucky you are. Watching your own countrymen attack your constitution is absolutely disgusting.
That's been going on in der Unitet $chtaat of WEIMARicuh since 1964, some would argue convincingly since the end of WW2.
Sometimes (when I want to feel depressed) I look at the Bill of Rights and think about how hate-filled democrats are attempting to negate almost each of the freedoms in the bill of RIGHTS.
They're not 'our countrymen', they're Democrats.
@@tamadeus7189 Before that. The amendments to change the way Senators were put into office from election by your state's legislature to popular vote, the income tax and the Federal Reserve Act giving control of the money supply to a private bank pretty much destroyed the original intent of said Constitution.
And now the attacks on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th and 5th amendments by the FJB administration
This should be shown in every history class
I agree the lack of knowledge about this in US History classes is astonishing
It used to be. I'm 58yo and went to both public and private schools. We The People allowed Marxists to take over the DemoMarxists Oops I meant democrats party, infiltrate and bribe the republican party and make a uniparty. 2024AD is The Last Chance to vote in a new Executive Branch and part of the Congress and Senate. The next 4 years the rest of the Congress and Senate, plus 1 or 2 Justices. It starts at the top, with a majority in the Congress and Senate. Otherwise, do you think we have a chance being heard with peaceful protests? We Should try, but really?
Another factor was the American Revolution was not a Cultural Revolution. It was political and with the narrow goals of restoration of clearly understand principles that were being denied by the King.
That's what he said.
And it warrants re-saying. Limited government requires a limited revolution to bring it about. And a limited revolution requires limited people.
So many people who believe themselves to be champions of "real America" are actually one tiny step from being dictators, leaning on the classic excuses: "it's for the greater good" or "it's God's will" or "my draconian measures are only temporary".
If Americans allow themselves to be led by such people, the next revolution will be just another "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" failure.
b.s. the revolution was to preserve African slavery and release expansion into native lands.
What another factor? It's literally what this video said. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@gorilladisco9108 Well, JC got it at least
Washington was being treated practically like the King of America at that time, so it was a shock to everyone that after two terms he just went home and let someone else get elected. I wish we had more people in public office do the same, instead of trying to hold onto power, just do what one can and then go back to one’s life.
Wish we had term limits for Congress and Federal Judges.
Here in the Philippines, we often celebrate our revolution against the Spanish as if it was some sort of victory. But the reality was it was a disasterous stalemate, with multiple Filipino factions vying for recognition as to which one was the "legitimate" government -- while Spain was still in control. The main reason why the Spanish left was because they lost the Spanish-American war in the late 1800s, and Spain gave up the Philippines to the US as part of a treaty. It was actually America's actions which ended Spain's 333-year-long rule over the Philippines. But historians in this country (who are mostly anti-American leftists sitting in universities) don't tell people that, and say it was "Filipino heroism" that pushed Spain out.
Aguinaldo has pretty much stomped out his rivals by the time Spain surrendered tho.
@@TaLeng2023 And setting himself up to become a dictator, same with the other dictators mentioned in the video. And he would have succeeded if America didn't arrive to establish their authority over the country.
@@RafaelBenedicto ... and 80 years later, along came Ferdinand ...
@@RafaelBenedictoyeah yeah....Spain BAD, everyone else good.....
@@TaLeng2023 More like all of them switched sides when they saw Spain was losing
Then switched sides again when Aguinaldo was losing
It succeeded because it wasn't a revolution. It was a war of independence. The colonists were Englishman fighting for their rights as Englishmen.
No Englishman would stop bowing to monarchs. It’s even the case today. Those brave men were AMERICANS.
@@InterceptorUS the British monarch has been mainly just a figurehead since the English Civil War & the Glorious Revolution (extending a tradition of constraining the monarch that goes back to Magna Carta and beyond). It was the British Parliament that passed the 5 ‘intolerable acts’, not King George.
The Colonists wrote a petition to the king to have him intercede on their behalf, but I’m not sure he was ever shown it (he wasn’t shown the subsequent olive branch petition)…
If you see war of independence all over the world, you'll see plethora of strongmen who gathered power around him (or lost it, only to be fought among his successors). Haiti is the standard of it. And there were also Bolivar in South America, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Soekarno in Indonesia, ...
@@InterceptorUS
"No Englishman would stop bowing to monarchs. It’s even the case today. Those brave men were AMERICANS."
Those "Americans" considered themselves to be British citizens and stated as much in their writings. As British citizens they believed they should have representation in parliament but were told that as colonist that the king was all the representation they were going to get. The war originally started as a war for their rights as British citizens, but when the king responded to their petition the king wrote that they and everybody who supported their cause would be hung until dead and all of their property seized and given to the government. That was when they decided that independence was the only way their rights were going to be protected and they drafted the "Declaration of Independence" and had it sent to the king and to parliament. That was when the war of independence actually started.
@@InterceptorUS John Adams even sent a letter to King George III and it he acknowledges that they and the english are kinsmen.
Genetics would also agree.
Most people today think about revolutions without understanding what is required to effectuate them. A successful revolution needs: 1. A declaration of political dissolution from the current regime, drafted by a body with some pre-existing local governing authority(for the US, this was the Declaration of Independence). 2. An organized military force to enforce the declaration of political dissolution (i.e. an army/navy), 3. A sound military strategy to lead to victory. 4. The political will to support the revolution among the local population. 5. A benevolent leader to release power to an elected body after independence has been secured.
Without any of these items, the revolution will fail.
Some societies revolt just to revolt, with no actual planning or goal in mind.
Another factor in the success of the American Revolution is that the colonies were all small republics. (Rule of Law with a representative legislative body)
Britain didn't do anything to meddle with governing bodies of the colonies. This a lesson the UK learned from the American Revolution and have been doing ever since - meddle and disrupt the revolting colony's government.
There are no such things as republics or democracies, and the Rule of Law is a lie.
As long as they were strong enough to do that.
Read the Declaration of Independence in which all the reasons for the War are listed. They meddled plenty. The Crown arbitrarily determined when it would allow or disallow the legislative assemblies to function, and felt free to veto or ignore their bills. The first thing the Brits did when pressures began to rise was to dissolve the Massachusetts Assembly and put the colony under direct Crown rule. That was *before* the Revolution had begun and was a major cause.
Governors of the colonies were also appointed royal officers of the Crown. Even the colonies which had begun as chartered corporations and proprietary colonies had become royal colonies by the time of the Revolution, and the first responsibility of the governors was to the Crown, not the people of the colony.
Yes, Salutary Neglect was in place for some time before the Revolution, but it was actually the *increasing* interference in colonial affairs, especially taxation, after the French and Indian (Seven Years) War which caused the Revolution to happen.
Don't underestimate the significance of 13 colonies each wielding significant economic, military and political power. Cooperation was necessary and mistrust led to checks and balances.
"Washington is still revered today. Not only for his ability to wield power, but his willingness to relinquish it."
A clearer example of why we need term limits for not only our elected officials but the unelected bureaucrats and more. Any person in office for too long runs the risk of being too tempted by the money and power thrown at them that corruption seems inevitable. What should the limit be? I have no idea, but 50 years seems a bit too much...
One term, with no re-election EVER.
This will both discourage megalomaniacs, AND force more people to do a term in some office or another.
The more people who get to "see behind the curtain" of government, the fewer unrealistic dreamers there will be expecting government to be their mommy, priest, doctor, teacher, and best pal.
My inclination is to choose office-holders by random draw, from among the citizens of the given jurisdiction. Refusals would be extremely limited, to prevent anyone from bribing the chosen citizen into stepping aside in favor of a megalomaniac.
If 2 terms, 8 years is good for the President it should good for all govt. employees. If you have done military time you can add the 8 years to that to get a pension. If not oh well. Remove the money from it and and you remove the corruption
@@consco3667 I like your reasoning. It would be a start... It would also reduce the influence of foreign governments (I hope).
@@p.t.anderson1593 some would say that no one would want the job. I say that many would want it for the right reasons.
@@consco3667 Are you also thinking that more of the right people, instead of so many lawyers, might step up to serve our country? Wouldn't that be nice...
Indeed, Thomas Jefferson said that the reason our revolution didn't end in tyranny like so many others was, "the character of one man." That man was George Washington.
the narrator is correct.
USA and Haiti. For the USA, first was Declaration of Independence, second was War. For Haiti, first was War, second was Declaration of Independence. BIG DIFFERENCE. Years before 1776, the founders of the USA debated, argued, counter-argued about the requirements, attributes, qualities needed for nationhood, thus slowly forming a proper mindset and proper temperament of the american people for eventual nationhood. In the case of Haiti, there was first Rebellion, visceral Anger, most Righteous Anger, blood-churning lust for Revenge against the French colonists. War was engaged and won by the Haitian slaves. A war engaged without aforethought, without afterthought akin to a fight initiated by a hot-headed person driven by righteous anger. The war won, what now? Declaration of Independence of 1804 was the only valid alternative because re-inviting French rule defeats the purpose of the war. The key point is: in 1804 the Haitian people was not prepared for effective nation building.
That the French came back in 1826, required and actually got reparations from Haïti implies that Haïti's independence was a façade, a joke. With Independence comes responsibility and the (supposed) ability to defend oneself. After 1804 Haïti built 20-odd fortresses about 5 miles inland: they would concede coastal areas because France had a Navy and Haiti did not. But Haiti got overextended with their invasion of the Dominican Republic (1821-1844). Ooops!!!
Independence for independence's sake is a silly concept. Ask yourself: what is the purpose for Independence? What is the ultimate goal: winning the war? winning the peace? Since 1804 Haiti has been losing the Peace. A 5 year-old child is foolish to seek independence from the parents. Yes, France were terrible parents. There is no International Child Protection Services for Nations. So Haiti, the 5 year-old child, was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Bad Karma for Haiti. Haiti is still stuck between a rock and a hard place because of its own bad governance.
In 1804 Haiti found itself in an awkward position: a slave-less Nation amongst slave-full Nations. No Nation, past and present, is 100% self-sufficient and thus needs to trade non-militarily with other Nations. Haiti needed to make itself an asset, not a liability, to the community of Nations. An independent Nation is an actual Nation even if other Nations do not recognize it as such. Look at Taiwan: despite not being recognized officially by many nations ALL nations want to trade with Taiwan. Taiwan is an asset to the community of Nations. One cannot say the same about Haiti.
But, but, but Taiwan did not have to suffer the torture of French-style colonial slavery!!! Swing and a miss. The point of Taiwan, which suffered through Japanese colonialism, is that even when it is the object of the People's Republic of China's campaign to delegitimize Taiwan in the eyes of the International World, Taiwan is still thriving. But let us play the Victim Olympics Game. South Korea went through WW2 and the Korean War and by 1953 South Korea was in much worse physical state than Haiti has been in 1804. Yet today (2024 AD) South Korea is in much better shape than Haiti. Key difference: in 1954 the Korean people were more educated and civilized than the Haitian ex-slaves of 1804 who were utterly uneducated and very barely domesticated. Haiti had 200 years to civilize its population and no foreign power prevented the domestication of the Haitian people.
Sorry Marxist revisionists: Simon Bolivar would still have accomplished his goals against Spain without Haiti's assistance. Haiti's token help was appreciated but it was not essential. Slavery in South America would still be abolished without the advice from Pétion. The USA would still have won over Great Britain without the 200-odd freed Haitian slaves who died in the battle of Savannah. The Marxist advocates for Haiti have lost perspective: the relevant issue is the Present and the Future, not the Past. The Marxist revisionists are stuck and lost in the weeds of the Past, grasping at straws, acting like some aged movie star looking at reruns of the very distant (and very irrelevant) glorious past.
Good points but l think the fundamental difference between Taiwan or South Korea and Haiti is the lack of a patron. Taiwan and South Korea were inhabited by old world peoples with an advance cultural identity not slaves cobbled from different ethnicities an ocean away by force. They also had a rich guiding patron that offered them privileged trading rights to prevent them falling into the communist bloc. Haiti had neither even if this doesn't excuse it's bad governance
No. First was creation of colonist institutions. Without institutions, you cannot govern. Read about the Committee of Safety.
As a South African I have always found the American Revolution fascinating.
A video for every American. Probably the best constitution ever written by man.
The Atlantic Ocean standing in between the American colonies & England as well as French support helped win the War for Independence.
I am a former paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne. Am 66 years old. You probably won't like this but when it all turns to shit we are going to need a great man to lead. I think you are that man. God bless you and your family.
Washington was a great man. What made him great was not just his effectiveness as a battlefield commander and as a civilian political leader, but his willingness to stand on principle, and transfer power after his term was complete. Humans will follow a strong man, that's for sure. That's Russian history in a nutshell, as a matter of fact, and African history as well. But what we need is moral strength.
A great man like napoleon Bonaparte.
@@RussianOccupier190I think it will be Baron Trump
It's even simpler than that, Nick. The American Revolutionaries were not malcontents; they were well-to-do, and the movers and shakers of the Colonies had everything to lose and nothing to gain by revolting. Many of them not only lost everything they had but also some of their lives and broken families. Rush Limbaugh would discuss what happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence every Fourth of July. We are so well off and secure that we tend to take all we have for granted.
God bless our mighty nation!!
In the cases of the English, French and Russian revolutions, these were all initiated in an environment where the populace was attempting to overthrow a feudal-based aristocratic order. The nobility in every case was resisting the forces driving their societies from political, social and economic aspects which were changing the culture as a whole. In other words, the nobility was 'reactionary.'
It was different for America. The colonies were composed of people fleeing tyranny and oppression in all its forms - political, social, economic AND RELIGIOUS. By the mid 1700s, the populace was already largely accustomed to managing their own local affairs and did not have the historical legacy of feudalism to overthrow. They were on much stronger ground because of this, and the possibility of reverting to an aristocratic or military tyranny was essential nil - the opposite of the case of the other 3.
*_America's Founding Fathers_* understood Lord Acton's most famous quote a full century before he wrote it -- "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely..." The underlying philosophy was one of ridding society of the Rule by Whim and emphasizing Rule by Law (res publica; republic), and decentralizing power. The gradual *_corruption_* of America has been marked by inexorable *_consolidation_* of power.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
You nailed it Nick. Rights come from God. Governments don't endow rights, they can only infringe on the rights already held by the people.
No. Rights are a social construct.
@@ron88303Why do you say that? So you can justify flouting them?
@@ron88303 The rallying cry of the wanna be tyrant.
@@ron88303while true, that doesn't mean they hold any less importance or necessity in the functioning and prosperity of a country.
@@XSR_RUGGER I didn't address their importance; only that they were a social construct instead of God given.
This is why I’m not in favor of a Revolution nowadays despite all of the failings of our country, regardless of which political side stages a revolution. I am thoroughly convinced that with the current mentality across the political spectrum, any such revolution would invariably be much more politically tyrannical than anything we have today and once those freedoms are traded away for political gain, it would become very difficult to ever win them back.
George Washington was key both to [1] winning independence and in [2] his role as the first president. His absence on either occasion would have doomed what we know today as the U.S.A.
I'm surprised nobody has spoken to Trump about asking Nick to be VP... Shit, Nick should be President some day... hooah
The Wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
2nd amendment. Most Americans had guns. That's why it was added to the Constitution, to remind any government about people's inalienable rights.
The U.S. Constitution hadn't been written yet at the time of the American Revolution.
It was actually debated and was included due to the great fear of the founding members of a standing army. It was so the people could protect the nation without the need of a standing armed force.
History is such a fascinating subject. Excellent job for such a quick video. My only issue is with the comparison, the American Revolution was a fight for independence, not to overthrow & replace England’s government. The other revolutions mentioned did set out to overthrow and replace their nation’s government.
The American revolution succeeded because God needed a country that would introduce the idea of God given rights to the world. He was on our side. That doesn't mean he still is, as we have turned away from him.
Yeah god said "look all this dudes talking about freedom while holding their slaves, i like them"
God has nothing to do with the American Revolution.
No lol. Most of the founders were Deists meaning they believed in a higher power but people were accountable for their lives and outcomes. While Christianity and its moral threads are woven into the documents of the United States, God or the need of him did not drive the establishment of this country.
Lmao that is the propaganda they sold to the idiots anyways.
We won because France stepped up from proxy war to full war and supported us with a fleet, thousands of troops, and a shit load of money.
No taxation without representation🎉😂
The American Revolution was one of the only successful 'Conservative' lead Revolutions in Human history.
The Russian, French & English revolutions were lead by what we could mostly classify as 'Left' Revolutions. What separates the former from the latter is WHO leads the Revolution.
The American Revolutions was a Revolution of the American Aristocracy against the British Aristocracy.
The American Revolution succeeded because they had a tangible reason to change rather than fixating on an idea. Plus, they wanted to keep certain traditions in addition to enacting change. Essentially, it was a combination of progress and preservation in the direction of a goal. This allowed them to adapt when the Articles of Confederation failed.
This sets them COMPLETELY apart from the Progressives and Conservatives of today; the former want change for its own sake while the latter want preservation for the same reason. This is similar to other revolutions which where ideologically driven, giving no tangible solutions for when something goes wrong.
Moral of the story: rebellions should only happen when the government does something wrong and the rebels have clear, rational alternatives for it; specifically, it should have a clear "should be" case that the rebels would also follow instead of an "us vs them" dynamic.
A non trivial part of it (that dovetails with the content of the video) is that it's a trick question. It wasn't a revolution at all. It was a war for independence. The original government, i.e. England's, survived just fine. That counterintuitively allowed the relative cultural continuity described.
A more useful video would compare various violent and non violent independence movements.
I loves these videos. They are so informative and encouraging. These are the things our schools and universities should be teaching.
Our problem today is that we have professional pols that are only interested in padding their pockets and the luxury retirement package. They complain about broken laws (which aren't enforced or done so selectively) and think by making new laws (that will get selectively enforced if at all), best their chedt and bloviate about the goodness they have wrought. We need citizen legislators that work to live and only legislate part-time with no financial gains!
In America, the people who were in charge before the revolution were in charge during the revolution and after the revolution. Washington was a colonial legislator, wartime army commander, and president. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, were similar. The list goes on. You could make the argument that the revolution was as much a civil war. It was a revolution because it changed the form of government, but the development of a wartime formal government and general respect for the traditional agreed rules of war were not typical features of a revolution.
Great work Nick! Scooby snacks for you.
Praying for Israel and the entire Middle East.
My allegiance is to Liberty, and the Repubic.
Great discussion Nick!
Or sometimes they fail coz of some external factor, like how the Philippine Revolution somehow managed to get the Spanish out, only for the Spanish to agree to surrender to America instead to avoid the humiliation of surrendering to the Filipinos.
Oliver Cromwell was destined to fail. I mean, anyone who makes pies illegal is totally out of touch with reality. 😅 ( look it up. He did that.) 😅
....and Sunday trading restrictions that were still in place in the 1970s
Thank you so much!
Keep fighting the good fight! Anne Coulter takes this on in her book "Demonic", an excellent read.
Very well said
Because the leaders of the American rebellion were unusually moral people. George Washington could have been King, he was a hero to the people, had powerful friends and the loyalty of the army, but he put power aside to the astonishment of all Europe.
Their idealism, honor or Christianity persevered against the temptations of power in the new nation. It wasn’t perfect especially to modern minds obsessed with the slavery topic but they did lay a strong foundation for the republic.
Part of why the French Revolution devolved into the reign of terror and the rise of a new dictator was in their hatred against the old government they swept away the judiciary, the political class and the church. They were driven by hatred and envy, not liberty and equality like they claimed. When the utopia didn’t appear they kept finding new people to execute.
Pretty much.
💝💝💝💝💝 Thank you.
storms blew invading ships back out to sea at key critical places and times giving us time to regroup...crossing the delaware was crazy...but it worked...i think that love and passion and maybe god were major participants in that wonderful birth of a nation...thank...love...
well done you. Nice encapsulation... makes Washington's Cincinnatus moment an extension the "movement" rather than a testament to the excellence of one man's character only...
2A likely helped too ?
Couldn't have -- it didn't exist yet.
While having arms and skill in advance of action will certainly contribute to an efficient start, it always seems that both sides of a conflict end up armed in pretty short order, no matter what the situation was before. I suspect the key is the new willingness to ignore laws -- the criminal infrastructure is usually in place, and once critical numbers of people become customers or participants in it, the free market ensures the product on demand (weapons) gets to where it's wanted.
The 2A didn't exist yet. It was amended to the Constitution later -- that's why it's called the 2nd "Amendment". But people did own guns and already believed it was their right by default. The 2A just cemented that right into the Constitution
Underrated.
America and Spain go hand in hand for surviving in stability after the civil war
Thoughts?
Hmmmmm. Spain has been plodding along for a while now. I will research their history and see how things have gone since Franco.
Thanks for the tip regarding Spain.
Cause we had help from France. Also, it wasn't a revolution (that's a misnomer). It was a war for independence, not to change the structure of Britain. Also, the land being fought over was "new" and 1000s of miles from the motherland. It wasn't like we tried to annex Wales or something.
the narrator is correct.
USA and Haiti. The first step of a voyage is the most important because errors made in the first step are rarely corrected and the rare corrections are made very slowly. George Washington accepted a second term reluctantly and rejected a 3rd term. Jean-Jacques Dessalines made himself Emperor. George Washington adhered to the principle of Federalism, with Democracy at the State level, Dessalines went from Presidency straight to Monarchy. Dessalines was followed by Henri Christophe who declared himself King. Haïti did not start going the Democracy route. Monarchists did not return to the USA but Monarchy returned to France at least twice after the French Revolution. Today (2024 AD), Marxists pine for the violence of the French Revolution.
The American Revolution preceded the Haitian and French Revolutions by at least 10 years and the latter 2 revolutions learned nothing from the first. Go figure.
Nice video. Impressive how it appears you monologued this perfectly from memory. Your editor is good
Backhanded crap slap on your part. Sad.
Not at all my friend. 100% compliment. And if he really did go 3 minutes perfectly like that, I am very impressed.
@graysonshaw1621 Thank you for replying. So, the "And if he really did . . ." relates to your initial, "Your editor is good.?" Hmmm.
He obviously has an editor. More than likely he divides up what he talks about and/or will go too long in one area or go back and add something somewhere else. Or he may go perfectly and not need any editing. Again, either he is a very good monologuer, or he has a very good editor.
@@graysonshaw1621Thank you.
Another interesting topic would be why the USA has such a stable republic when so many others fail easily. I mean, stability since the Civil War is amazing, I do not see any other presidential republics having so mouch estabiility. Here in Costa Rica we feel we have a stable republic, but our last civil war ended in 1950
We DON'T have a stable republic. We have a stable Federal Empire, and have since 1865.
The Founders' constitutional republic lasted from 1791 to 1861, and the last few years of that were fairly twitchy.
Since then, the Federal Empire has:
1. invaded the Confederacy,
2. twisted the Constitution to mean whatever politicians felt like it should mean,
3. conquered the assorted native tribes to take their land, including a brief invasion of Mexico,
4. participated in a totally pointless foreign war in order to gain political leverage for an attempt at a world government scheme,
5. almost destroyed its own economy with currency manipulation and other poor financial policies,
6. participated in another, slightly less pointless, foreign war in order to gain political leverage to begin spreading economic and military dominance overseas,
7. devoted its domestic policies almost entirely toward the slow building of a neo-Marxist regime controlled by wealthy elites
What you see in the US is not political success -- it is commercial and technological success, achieved in spite of our government, not because of it.
@@stevenscott2136 You do not know what you have, starting with being able to critique your government like this. Try that in our corrupt latinoamerican systems, with extreme right and extreme left totalitarian regimes, revolutions, gangs (i.e. cartels, maras, guerrillas) ever so often. That is why latinoamericans keep putting themselves at high risk in order to try to get in the USA I do not see americans running for their lives to go live in Honduras. We costarricans somehow have escaped those extremes too, and I can think a lot of critiques of our tuly social democratic system, with a government that even in the best of times fails to achieve the level of employment vs. inflation control of the US. That is what I refer to: go check when your last civil war was and come to latinoamerica and check how many coups and revolutions have happend, how many people have to run for their lives because they are the political oposition of the current party in power or are jailed. One of my MBA teachers was held for several months in a poliical prisioners jail just for being an oposition candidate in Nicaragua.
@@stevenscott2136 You do not realize what you have, just by being able to critique your government like this. I see plenty lationamericans running for their lives trying to get into the USA, I do not see gringos fleeing the US for politcal persecution and social violence comming to latinoamerica. Maras, carteles, guerrillas, civl wars, coups, shifts from the extreme right to the extreme left. Even here in Costa Rica, where our last civil war ended in 1950, our truly socialist (social democratic, social cristians, communists, etc.) governments fail totally in achieving levels of employment vs. inflation and levels of poverty similar to the US, even when the conditions are ripe to take advantage: I think if the mishandling of the economy in the US was as bad as latinoamerica you would have social unrest as never seen for a long time. If you want to see how marxists regimes work go to Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina before Milei, Cuba, Nicaragua and even Costa Rica to a degree (socialist here have a lot of power).
Everything in the video is accurate, but 2 other big factors in the success: (1) The Colonists were already used to a large dose of self-rule and had government already set up at the state (colony) and local levels. (2) The Atlantic Ocean
They had simple goals, and America had the resources to make them shareable.
2:42 A little known fact about the word "Liberty": It means more than just simply freedom, it means freedom to earn money by any means as long as it is Legal. That's why it's on our Coinage. In 17th Century Colonial America (wholly ruled by the British Crown), there were severe restrictions on things like foreign trade (exports to England ONLY), and they could not coin their own money, as this actually would be considered Treasonous by the Crown! And there was also the excessive taxation of the colonies without any right of representation. Hence the American Revolution.
Washington will one day be derided and condemned for his error.
In December 1876, ships of the Pacific Squadron and the Siberian Flotilla under the command of Rear Admiral Orest Polikarpovich Puzino arrived in San Francisco, and in March 1877 a squadron under the command of Rear Admiral Ivan Butakov arrived in New York. The appearance of squadrons off the coast of the United States again had the same goals - to demonstrate to Great Britain that in the event of hostilities, Russian ships would interfere with British transoceanic trade. When relations with London somewhat normalized, Russia again recalled its ships from American ports.
Oliver Cromwell is probably very popular in the Protestant parts of Northern Ireland.
What actual history with no revisions? Will never see the light of day in a classroom
As a Brit, my blood books every time someone brings up that tyrant Cromwell.
Lord Jesus Christ, thank you for blessing America so much these past 200 years! Please forgive our wickedness and godlessness! Save us from our evil, Lord! Only you can save us!
I think it's because for all intents and purposes, we already WERE our country by 1776. We'd been self-governing for over a century by then, just by virtue of being so far from Britain.
We already had everything in place that we needed to keep the nation functioning.
The founding fathers really were some of the most brilliant thinkers to ever live I mean they really thought out almost every scenario. It’s a shame that the democratic party in todays political climate is doing everything to destroy their legacy and do precisely what the Russians & French failed to do.
Read Democracy in America by Alexis de Toqueville. You will understand just how different the ideas of America are compared to all of history.
The fortunate thing about America at the time is that we had some bad ass dudes… George Washington, Benjamin Franklin,Walt Whitman, who would’ve thought asking the French to kick down some cash baby. These men were gangsters and a time before gangsters, but they know how to put the stuff together to make it happen. I love American history and you look into it hard, you’ll figure out that there were just regular people who were willing to bet their lives that they could make a better place to live for everyone.. and our Constitution proves that that they weren’t just in it for themselves, granted, they were all lawyers, but they could’ve just as easily had their heads cut off literally….. gangster moves… did you know that Paul Revere was only one of many that sent the message that the British were coming? Almost nobody knows that do yourself a favor. There was a young girl. She was like 15. She went further and faster than Paul Revere to spread the message I wish I could remember her name right now… But you should look her up she’s fucking gangster … in the rain in the middle of the night by horseback not in a Prius ha ha ha these people had backbone… And her father thought who could I send that I could trust that I know will get the job done.. and he sent his daughter, that’s a man that knows that he is raised her right… gangster… by all accounts we owe them a lot more respect than we do today….. I haven’t seen a politician go out one of them more than an inch for any cause, aside from Donald Trump in quite some….
The reason why the American revolution succeeded is quite simple, we didn't throw away any institutions necessary for the functioning of society.
All we threw away was the British king and Parliament.
Insofar as political organization was concerned, aside from the top most part of the system, it hardly changed at all, it really wasn't much of a revolution. This meant that for the most part we weren't consumed in arguments about how everything would function and could focus on winning the war.
What was revolutionary about the American Experiment was the fact that we were the first time a set of colonies became independent and got rid of the monarchy (and actually succeeded).
In many ways George Washington was merely the fiery cherry on top this revolutionary cake.
0:33 It does not "beg the question". Look up the phrase
When the common theme is replacing one tyrannical govt with another, it just took more time with US. I'm sure if the founding fathers could see America today they would be appalled.
Our Founders learned well from the English Revolution: by centuries of trial and much-error, they evolved a 3-part government of King, Nobles, and Commons, each with defined powers and checks and balances to preserve those powers. Then came James I who was originally James VI of Scotland, who taught his son Charles I a preference for *his* 3-part government in the French model: God over the King over everybody else. This went from bad to worse to civil war, ending with 500,000 dead, including Charles I, and Oliver Cromwell's 3-part government: I have an army, you don't, we do it my way. I am unmoved when I hear complaints about how slow Congress moves, I am terrified when I read of 'enabling legislation' whereby the bureaucracy gets to enact 'regulations' that it is jail and fines to transgress. Is there one hair's difference between that and enacting a law?
That's why I keep saying, we need a restoration. Not revolution. America and Americans desperately need to return to following the Constitution, but also, a new check and balance must be created where citizens have recourse against those who, when elected and violate the individual rights set forth by the Constitution, are held to account. What we have now is almost daily violations, with even a judge declaring the Constitution doesn't exist in her courtroom. Absolutely atrocious.
Also another thing was the character of George Washington. After the war, Congress couldn't pay its soldiers and officers. Many of them urged Washington to stage a mutiny and march on the capital and take power himself, just like Cromwell or Caesar. However, Washington refused and pulled his troops back into line. As a result, America remained a republic.
The American Revolution occurred a generation before the French Revolution. By the time of the French Revolution, the so-called "Enlightenment" had turned immoral, with hedonism at its core. Marx, Hegel, Malthus, and Bentham were contemporary to the French Revolution. So it was actually beneficial for America to have its revolution ever so slightly closer to the time of the Puritans and Quakers, before the time of the crass libertines with their Orwellian perspectives. Accordingly, Washington and others of his circle felt inclined to be modest and follow the example of Cincinnatus, rather than be an emperor aimed at world conquest, like Napoleon and the leaders of the other revolutions.
Washington is the greatest man to walk this earth, 2nd only to Christ. Furthermore, the Constitution is a work of art. The words penned on it divinely inspired.
👍
Other countries have a revolution first, and then try to establish a government after the revolution starts. This always results in the general with the support of the most troops becoming a military dictator.
In America, we established an elected government first, then started a revolution.
Also, America was populated by a large percentage of people who came here for religious freedom. They wanted to be left alone. They did not want a large government to tell them what to do.
Judao'Christian values were also necessary to establishing freedom because,
"The prerequisite to freedom is the voluntary morality of the individual. If you are free but not moral, you have anarchy. If you are forced to be moral, you have tyranny. The only way to have freedom is if the individual is voluntarily moral."
Judao'Christian values seem to be the only system of morals that is compatible with American freedom. Which is why when we attempt to establish freedom in other countries it never works.
These are the three elements that no other revolution had.
1.) Replacement government established before the war starts.
2.) Large percentage of people who want to be left alone.
3.) The voluntary morality of the individual.
The French sent us 5 billion gold livres.
Enough to give the people in power fortitude, thank God!
They succeded because they actually stood up and fought rather than ignored it and pretended someone else would come along to fix it for them as conservatives do today.
Right on. Conservatives talk a good game but don't fight.
It's called "bystander effect" -- people tend to wait until someone else, preferably a person with some status, takes action. Often they still wait until they see others are ALSO taking action.
That's why the Left has been so successful -- they have leaders who vigorously order, persuade, trick, or bribe people into acting. Without leaders, the vast majority of people won't step out of line until they're starving.
You are referring to the English civil war. The glorious revolution was 1688 and the bill of rights was published in 1689 a century later American adopted its own bill of rights heavily influenced by the bill of rights 1689
America : Hey France, wanna go to war ?
France : Nah man, can't afford it..
America : It's against England !
France : *HONHON INTENSIFIES*
One Nation under god. Not a Nation lost to godlessness. God is the difference.
Are you Tim Ballard?
The American Revolution also inspired the French Revolution, which led to the rise of Napoleon.
After Oliver Cromwell died, his son Richard succeeded him. But when the English people called him a name like "Tumbledown Dick", you kind of knew he wasn't going to last long. And he didn't - the Monarchy was restored after only one year of rule by Richard Cromwell.
My father and his family crossed into Texas in 1917 and never left. Basically because of what the founding fathers created...
Your gamer chair swivel is distracting
Cromwell wasn't that bad tho
I don’t think the French Revolution was a faliure just because napoleon Bonaparte came power considering that he made many economic, social, political and military reforms that changed the world. Also nothing wrong with having an absolute ruler as your leader as long as he is responsible with his power then no problem.
Yeah and Napoleon is still revered by me today as the greatest tactician who ever lived.
And then came Lincoln...
You can;t answer such a question in a 4-minute video. For one thing, you completely ignore the support the Colonies received from France, England's strategic enemy. If not for international support, we would have lost to England.
I think his main point is that AFTER winning, we managed to avoid immediately ruining ourselves.
France was vital to the actual war effort, as were Britain's other interests elsewhere which made it unwilling to commit the necessary resources long-term.
But other revolutionaries who also won their wars promptly destroyed everything they had just achieved, while we didn't. That wasn't France at work, that was internal.
The problem with your question is IT WAS NOT A REVOLUTION!!! It was a War For Independence.
>The American Colonists were already governing them selves
>The American Colonists leaders had tried to have their grievances heard in England for years if not decades.
>The American Colonists were Christians, but respected their differences and drafted Constitutions for the States, and then a new Constitution for the United States of American which subtly acknowledges God at the beginning & end, but does not dedicate the nation to any particular sects "God"
>The American leaders were willing to contemplate a new Non-Aristocratic type of government, but still looked at their work with suspicious, and mistrust, knowing it needed improvements. Americans have always experimented with "Utopian Ideas" but also mistrusted them.
>There were many in England who supported the Americans fight to gain independence & British General Lord Jeffery Amherst, who commanded the colonial fighting men during the French and Indian wars refused to come out of retirement and take sides
>And as you said, the American Leaders of 1776 were willing to relinquish power, although NONE of them (esp.: Washington) were as innocent as you claimed. They faithfully were guided by the wisdom of Montesquieu who believed opposing sides could create new and better ideas when they compromised.
We need that "spirit of the laws" attitude today!!
IMHO
(Check out John F McManus' Overview of America video)
France
God. God is the reason America is different.
English common law heritage. Your welcome
Beard Friday!
Don’t forget the importance of religion. I.e. Christianity, that gave men hope, a reason to act with bravery, and to unite.
Man,look what it's become. Weowe HRH King George III a whopper of an apology!
Yup George Washington the indispensable Man
A mix of luck, pragmatism (it wasn't an ideological revolution), and the fact that , after the british fled, the states weren't divided by petty squabbles and rivalries, that existed, but, at least for the first years, didn't compromise the young nation's welness, as sadly, happened south of the Rio Grande. Naturally the USA were very lucky that :
First, UK was more occupied with European's troubles (read:Napoleonic wars) and then with its colonies for searching revenge against its former colonies, just to give an example, as other european countries would've done;
Second, no one exploited the natural weakness of early US constitution, the lack of a strong, real national pride, look how many fought for their state and not for the nation in ACW. Imagine some nation corrupting and messing with inter-state rivalries, not only for the slavery, but also for territorial/mercantile contests, as in W. Gibson's novel the alternate UK did in The Difference Engine (1990).
I love the insights of the videos and Making the Arguement, but I never understand why you guys lump the English Civil War in with the Age of Revolution. England had conflicts over the right of taxation before and the American Revolution began over the same question. While the struggle between Parliament and the absolutist Stuarts was where violence ultimately broke out, the English Civil War was more the result of a century and a half of religious division and conflict in English society. And when considered in the context of the contemporaneous 30 Years War and French Wars of Religion, the English Civil War looks like yet another Early Modern conflict as Europe groped its way from the medieval world to the modern nation-state. Doesn't make sense to lump it in with the revolutions born from the Enlightenment.
That said, the English Civil War so scarred the English-speaking world that the American Founders sought to prevent the consolidation of power not only in the executive (no independent taxation or war-making authority), but also in the legislature (no bills of attainder or state church).