Musket ball = bullet. The King George statue was literally used against him.
@Trifler500
3 ай бұрын
Yup. The old muzzle loaded muskets fired a spherical round ball. Later, rifles fired the oval shaped bullets we know today.
@johannesvalterdivizzini1523
3 ай бұрын
Actually, the King George statue was melted down for cannonballs, not musket balls.
@jimreilly917
3 ай бұрын
Useless trivia…it’s why individual bullets are still called rounds.
@seancatherall31
3 ай бұрын
The physical signs of this act of rebellion are still visible today at New York's Bowling Green Park: the fence posts around the statue were topped with finials prior to July 9, 1776, the day the statue was torn down. The fence is still there. So are the marks on the tops of the posts where the finials were sawn off and melted into musket balls, along with King George's statue.
@_new_french_touch_
3 ай бұрын
@@seancatherall31I recently saw a TikTok explaining this and it has got to be one of the coolest things I’ve learned in while 🙌🏼
@andrewkline5611
3 ай бұрын
An American beer company named themselves after patriot Samuel Adams, thus the future alcoholic beverage line.
@RealDiehl99
3 ай бұрын
That line always makes me laugh!
@tommc4916
3 ай бұрын
My wife's BFF is married to a German national, and Sam Adams is his favorite mass-market American beer. He prefers micro-brews, but it he's going to get beer at a supermarket on the way home, it will be Sam Adams.
@PeteSmoot
3 ай бұрын
I think Sam Adams was a brewer at the time. He was also a massive radical and cousin of future president, John Adams.
@johnlabus7359
3 ай бұрын
and Ethan Allen became a traditional American furniture brand.
@kennethferland5579
3 ай бұрын
@@tommc4916 Sam Adams is certainly bigger then a micro brewery, but I would not call them mass-market either.
@ExUSSailor
3 ай бұрын
The Dutch were the ones who actually settled New York. New York City was originally the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam.
@adamskeans2515
3 ай бұрын
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam!
@user-jq8wr8ru2s
3 ай бұрын
Albany NY is the oldest charted city in the US with the original Dutch charter from 1686 still in affect.
@cp368productions2
3 ай бұрын
And the colony was New Netherlands. Really should have stayed different names so people wouldn't confuse the state and city.
@1QU1CK1
3 ай бұрын
In Washington Irving's History of New Amsterdam he says there were no problems for 150 years... then they formed a government and the troubles started.
@bigploppa154
3 ай бұрын
Much of New Jersey was also colonized by the Dutch. Van Syckle's tavern is right down the road from me and was built a few decades before the Revolution. I'd bet good money that the Van Syckle family has been here since about 1600. Dutch harvesting of oysters around Jersey City absolutely destroyed the ecosystem as they were unwilling to abide by the limits that the Lenape had used for centuries in regard to annual harvesting.
@liamrichardson6830
3 ай бұрын
Two fun facts. 1: The reason coffee is so popular in America is because of the British taxing tea. The colonists turned to drinking coffee in protest. 2: Paul Revere never said, "The British are coming." He said, "The regulars are coming" since the colonists were still British subjects.
@joshsmith4512
2 ай бұрын
lol true story
@merryrose6788
2 ай бұрын
In the tv show Sleepy Hollow, the character Ichabod Crane (in this version a British officer who joins the colonists) has come back to life in the modern world, and is taken to a Revolutionary War museum, where he's listening to a tour guide tell a group of school children that Revere said "The British are coming." Crane impatiently corrects the tour guide, saying, "We were all British then, so saying the British are coming would be most unhelpful." (Not a direct quote).
@CharlesBradbury-s5b
12 күн бұрын
and yet we still drink more tea than them😥
@lindadianesmith6013
3 ай бұрын
Quick answer to one of your questions: No England was not protecting us. They were protecting their financial interests. They saw the colonies as theirs.
@johannesvalterdivizzini1523
3 ай бұрын
And they obviously expanded their empire.
@DiggerTheDwarf
3 ай бұрын
Well to be fair, the colonies WERE theirs. And the colonists even considered themselves British until part way through the war. At the start the American colonists just wanted to make the British respect their rights as subjects of the British Crown, which the colonists felt were being ignored. It wasn't until after the fighting had broken out and the British refused peace that independence was seriously considered.
@fyrdman2185
3 ай бұрын
Of course it was theirs, the colonists themselves were British.
@mitchelltyler5972
3 ай бұрын
"no they weren't protecting *us* , they were protecting their interests". So yea..they were protecting you lol.
@sammygreco
2 ай бұрын
@@mitchelltyler5972 If the colonies weren't valuable, they wouldn't protect them. They didn't care about the colonists as people. They cared about them as bags of money. There's a difference.
@vincentdarrah
3 ай бұрын
To answer a few of your questions, The part in the south that is now Florida, at the time of the Revolution was Spanish owned. The northern part, now the state of Maine, was a part of Massachusetts until 1820, when it became the state of Maine. Because of the tax on tea, Americans started drinking coffee, which is why more people here drink coffee than hot tea. New York was first settled by the Dutch and Delaware was first settled by the swedes. Those colonists weren't completely untrained. Every colony had militias. They were actually created to fight Native Americans. In some cities, towns, and villages it was required for every adult male to own a gun. They had very little training, essentially, show up with your gun, fire, and run or reload. Since you are German, let me tell you about the most important German that was on our side. His name was Baron Von Steuben. He claimed to be a Baron, but history has since found that he wasn't. He was sent by Benjamin Franklin to assist Washington in training our army. He brought his French interpreter with him. He was a drill instructor. He would bark out orders or cuss men out in German. His interpreter would say it, cuss words and all, in French. Then the Marquis de Lafayette, who was French and Washington's aide, would repeat it in English, cuss words and all. Von Steuben wrote a drill manual for the USA that is still used today, with stuff added to modernize it
@elkins4406
3 ай бұрын
We get to see the stick figure version of him in part II. (Oh no! Spoilers!)
@darthdonuts-fq1dw
3 ай бұрын
Slight errata regarding Florida; at the time or the revolution it was British controlled and had been since the seven years war (aka French and Indian war). Britain ceded it back to Spain in the peace treaty following the revolutionary war. It was later acquired by the United States from Spain in 1819.
@cp368productions2
3 ай бұрын
They didn't need formal training, they were all hunters and were excellent shots.
@Perfectly_Cromulent351
3 ай бұрын
The main reason we drink tea is due to the fact that it has more caffeine than tea. The Boston Tea party wasn’t exactly common knowledge to people for most of American history and if it was, I doubt most people would have been influenced by it.
@vincentdarrah
3 ай бұрын
@@Perfectly_Cromulent351 no, it was the price increase on tea that caused people to drink coffee, they knew nothing about caffeine. And if you don't think most people knew about tea boycotts, then why does the Museum of the Revolution, of which I was a volunteer until health prevented it, have newspapers from ALL the colonies telling people to drink coffee?. No one knew what caffeine was yet
@tHEdANKcRUSADER
3 ай бұрын
🎼 “even Old New York was once New Amsterdam” 🎶
@sakisaotome6753
3 ай бұрын
🎵Why they changed it, I can't say. People just liked it better that way.🎶
@raspycellist
3 ай бұрын
@@sakisaotome6753Istanbul, not Constantinople, now it's Istanbul not Constantinople, why did Constantinople get the works, that's nobody's business but the Turks.
@sidusspei2
3 ай бұрын
TMBG :)
@McNubbys
3 ай бұрын
ISSSSSSSSSTAAAAAAANBULLLLLLLL!
@jburt779
2 ай бұрын
No one’s business but the Yanks …
@paulschirf9259
3 ай бұрын
It is important to remember that at the outbreak of the war they were not fighting for independence. Many of the colonists were 5+ generations in the colonies, but they still considered themselves British. They were fighting to be treated as full English citizens, with a voice in how they were governed. They were willing to lay down their lives for liberty, but were not seeking independence (yet). The taxes were offensive to them not for how high they were (they were not that high), but because English common law guaranteed a person being taxed the right to help decide how they were taxed. But as a colonist they didn't have representation in parliament. Representation was a difficult matter. With the American population approaching 50% of that of England and growing fast adding the American colonists representatives directly to parliament would be a major shake-up in the balance of power. And to make matters worse, if land ownership was used in any formula for calculating representation the massive amount of land in the American colonies could turn them all into voters. Intelligent people foresaw an England where the population at home would become a minority dominated by British citizens living outside of the homeland. There were attempts at compromise, but they were poorly designed and failed. Another thing to understand is that each colony was effectively a corporation from the English point of view. They often treated each separately and the colonists themselves had little loyalty collectively. When dealing with the post-7 Years War issues Franklin advocated that the colonies needed to negotiate collectively. Many of the images used during the war were based not on rebellion, but on failed attempts at collective bargaining, like the chopped up snake "Join or Die" isn't about joining the army. George Washington was an officer in the colonial army, not the redcoats. After the 7 years war (We call it the French and Indian War in the U.S.) Washington wanted a commission in the royal army, but was rejected... again, 2nd class citizen. It is very important to understand that George Washington did not join the continental army to fight for independence. He and most others felt that they were fighting for their rights as English citizens when the conflict started. Kill each other for a few months and the idea of independence became more popular - but it never became extremely popular. Most people just wanted the fighting to stop regardless of outcome. I do living history presentations and sometimes portray a loyalist. It is surprising to Americans today to learn that the idea of independence wasn't popular at first - they're fooled by the modern media into thinking we hated England. We didn't - we hated parliament - and who doesn't at any point in history? This was a civil war, with families being very split on the issues. Brothers fought brothers, literally at times.
@tylerbarse2866
3 ай бұрын
To further build on this, the solution the colonists wanted, was for the colonial legislatures to be empowered to represent the colonies on behalf of the crown. If Parliament was the legislative body for the home, the colonial legislature would be the legislative body for the colonies. But as you pointed out, the problem is parliament. This sort of thing was viewed as an attack on Parliament's power, and parliament didn't want to lose power. It's worth noting that King George, by British standards was viewed relatively favorable. One of his accomplishments is that he never vetoed an act of parliament in his reign. The American revolution, as a conflict between parliament and the colonies, George would not get involved. King George even later remarked to American painter Benjamin West, that if Washington was going back to his farm after the war, that he must be the greatest man in the world. What I find interesting, is that in about 80 years after the American Revolution, the British passed a major reform to how their colonies were governed with the colonial laws Validity act of 1865. Which effectively was what the American revolutionaries wanted in their time.
@johannesvalterdivizzini1523
3 ай бұрын
Excellent analysis. I believe that public opinion in the colonies was split 3 ways--1/3 Patriot, 1/3 Loyalist, 1/3 non-aligned--with each colony providing troops for both sides. We must also remember that there were powerful voices in Parliament who opposed the war and wanted some kind of accommodation, but it was the King's ministers who wanted to prosecute the War. Thus, it was the Ministers (not the King, not England and not even Parliament) who were despised.
@RealDiehl99
3 ай бұрын
@Paulschirf9259 "Intelligent people foresaw an England where the population at home would become aminority dominated by British citizens living outside of the homeland." I've never seen this mentioned before nor had I ever considered it. It makes a lot of sense. Very interesting! Thanks for sharing.
@DarkKatzy013
3 ай бұрын
Very good research and analysis.
@kathyastrom1315
Ай бұрын
My 7th great-grandfather James Gorsline was a Loyalist in upstate New York. After refusing to sign the Oath of Allegiance, he was initially sent to Exeter, NH, along with several other Loyalists, but most of them returned home over the next few months. James continued to talk against the Revolution, and was eventually thrown onto a prison ship near Kingston, NY. He spent three weeks there before emerging and agreeing to sign. He remained in New York even after the war, so he must have made his peace with it.
@michael-1680
3 ай бұрын
Chris, you're partially correct. Fighting for 8 years against the British convinced most people that no government was to be entirely trusted, and the only way to insure freedom was to allow everyone to defend themselves by force of arms. Armed citizens were known as the militia. Hence, the Second Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And thus, we have a saying: "When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have freedom." Americans may support our government. But the people in the government are our EMPLOYEES, not our rulers. And one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to make sure that everyone REMEMBERS that.
@HemlockRidge
3 ай бұрын
Unfortunately, we haven't been able to be as well armed as the Government since 1934. The National Firearms act outlawed private ownership of automatic firearms. And has been amended to include: Explosive weapons, and rocket propelled weapons. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, commonly known as the ATF, has been given a lot of power without any input from the people.
@michael-1680
3 ай бұрын
@@HemlockRidge That's true. My only comfort is that that's still far better than most countries. You can only do the best you can.
@docsavage8640
3 ай бұрын
@HemlockRidge and all those laws and bureaus are utterly unconstitutional
@HemlockRidge
3 ай бұрын
@@docsavage8640 I mostly agree. Cafeteria Constitutionals slap on the blinders and run rampant over it. They've been getting away with it for decades.
@donnwilson8611
3 ай бұрын
BRAVO! Well said brother!
@stg4478
3 ай бұрын
the father of the US army that trained those men was Fridrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin Von Steuben
@thorkagemob1297
3 ай бұрын
"Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim" vibes
@MrSGL21
3 ай бұрын
yep what most Germans and most Americans don't know, is Von Steuben, a German, turned the militia of the USA into a fighting force that could go toe to toe with the British Army. What most American's also don't know is the French provided not just material aid but direct military assistance (like they are doing in Ukraine today) to the colonies. The French Navy helped out tremendously.
@vincentdarrah
3 ай бұрын
@@MrSGL21 his book on how to train troops is still used by the US military today, it's not the ONLY thing, but it's contents are included
@Deadxman616
3 ай бұрын
@@MrSGL21 ...when they finally got here ;)
@YSongCloud
3 ай бұрын
Correct, but not yet at this point in history. That all comes next in part 2.
@gregchambers6100
3 ай бұрын
Yes. The right to bear arms is exactly to defend ourselves from tyranny. Not just self defense and hunting. We are citizens, not subjects.
@jenniferhanses
3 ай бұрын
It literally says we have the right to bear arms in order to form a militia.
@marcbennett9232
3 ай бұрын
exactly. the right to bear arms is not only to defend ourselves, but to prevent tyranny from the government
@torstenheling3830
3 ай бұрын
@@marcbennett9232Hört sich gut an. Ist reiner Quatsch.
@elkins4406
3 ай бұрын
@@torstenheling3830 Indeed. We live in a rather different world now than we did during the Enlightenment.
@juanheredia2293
3 ай бұрын
That's nowadays, but originally, it was so settlers could defend them selfs from native Americans. The irony is that it was the British strategy to save money on defense
@jenniferhanses
3 ай бұрын
How can you force somebody to import something? By controlling all of the boats. The English had the trading companies. They had a trade plan where they extracted all the raw resources from their colonies, shipped them back to England for processing, and then sent them out again. This made some products ridiculously expensive in the US colonies. And what was more infuriating was that the colonies know that some of these places like the islands with the sugar, we really nearby and we could just go over there and get sugar direct, but England wouldn't allow it. This is why, pre-Revolution, the US had a disproportionate amount of smugglers. Because if Britain wasn't going to allow us to have sugar and other raw goods, we were going to go out and get it ourselves. I mean, I suppose we could have just not had sugar and other goods. But we really wanted them, and England was being really stupid about making its shipping lines inefficient in an effort to take all of the wealth of the colonies for itself, even from people who wanted to be loyal citizens. We just refused to accept that the cotton needed to be shipped from South Carolina to England to be made into cloth to be sold in New York when New York had plenty of factories of its own for making cloth and it was less risky, and also who wants to pay for shipping twice?
@ScottLovenberg
3 ай бұрын
Short answer - guns and the willingness to use them to enforce whatever you want. Crazy concept. The rest is just logistics of where and who to make those facts known and everything falls into place sans occasional rebellion and making examples in response. Note, this solution only scales by the factor of superior force you have, dwindling to nothing quicky when you no longer have enough superiority to be willing to stress test your margin of error in your assessment and just hope no one stress tests it out for you. Like, a rebellion.
@PeteSmoot
3 ай бұрын
All correct. However, even if you control the boats, you can't _make_ someone buy sugar. However, sugar was an enormous business. Colonial Americans (and all of Europe) had enormous sweet tooths (teeth?). IIRC, sugar production was the biggest industry in the Americas. Not North America, particularly, but the Caribbean and Brazil. Not so fun fact: most of the slaves brought from Africa were sent to sugar plantations, where they died in droves. It was horrible.
@merryrose6788
2 ай бұрын
@@PeteSmoot There's an Errol Flynn film, Captain Blood, about the British Battle of Sedgemoore, and Dr. Peter Blood being arrested for helping an injured "rebel." He was facing Judge Jeffreys' Bloody Assizes: torture and death. In the film, King James II is told this is a waste of valuable men who could instead be sold as slaves in the sugar plantations. The film showed that, as you mention, the work conditions were horrible.
@PeteSmoot
2 ай бұрын
@@merryrose6788 Ooh, I love Errol Flynn but haven't watched his movies in decades. I saw Captain Blood when i was in high school. I need to rewatch it. IIRC it has an epic scene where Blood says (and I'm paraphrasing) "they made me an outlaw so f*** it, I'm going full pirate!"?
@pyronuke4768
3 ай бұрын
The exact wording of the second amendment; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It's a little confusing because of the old-time talk, but it boils down to 'people should be able to defend themselves and their property from those who would want to unlawfully take them/it by force.' There was also an idea floating around at the time where the national army would be disbanded and the population was expected to defend themselves, and state-sponsored militias would be formed in times of crisis. That whole idea fell apart during the War of 1812 and the national army was reinstated, but the prospect of citizens being able to defend themselves and their property remains a big part of American culture to this day.
@mccaine1
3 ай бұрын
Both the Prussian Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben (on the side of the colonies), and mercenaries from Hesse-Kassel (on the side of Great Britain) fought in the American Revolution. Von Steuben was instrumental in teaching the Colonial Army how to train soldiers.
@tlockerk
3 ай бұрын
I have a possibly wrong memory that some of those soldiers stayed in the US rather than return?
@mccaine1
3 ай бұрын
@@tlockerk I'm sure some of them did.
@americanminotaur2518
3 ай бұрын
@@tlockerkYou’re correct. I saw different numbers for how many settled in the US and Canada at the war’s end, but it seems to have been a few thousand at least.
@RealDiehl99
3 ай бұрын
Von Steuben is one of my favorite characters of the war. Heck... I even named my cat (Mr. Von Steuben) after him. I call him, Stewie for short 😁
@johannesvalterdivizzini1523
3 ай бұрын
I had German ancestors who owned a farm in Western NJ who served in the NJ forces against Britain during the Revolution (they had also served in the French & Indian War)
@colinpreston80
3 ай бұрын
What a lot of Europeans forget is that the United States is a young country and a very big country. In Germany, during the American Revoultion, you could probably ride your horse out of your village and into another in an hour of so. In America, if you leave your home, it could days, weeks, even months before you reach another settlement. So the right to bear arms was needed so people could protect themselves, be it from wild animals, criminals, and even the their own government.
@rw7668
3 ай бұрын
Germany didn’t exist back then.
@vashsunglasses
3 ай бұрын
@@rw7668 They obviously meant the people who lived where Germany is now (in this case the Holy Roman Empire).
@tylerbarse2866
3 ай бұрын
Yes, and No. Depends on where you lived during this time period. John Jay once said he could travel from Boston to Philadelphia via the light of his burning effigies during the time period where the Jay Treaty was first signed. This was true for some of the lesser settled areas, but the more settled coast was not like this, at all. This is more applicable to the western expansion period, than it was to the pre-independence colonial period.
@robgraham5697
3 ай бұрын
Back then the government didn't have weapons too superior to what the citizens had. Now? A full auto assault rifle is pretty much useless. Except for murdering school children.
@craigplatel813
3 ай бұрын
@@tylerbarse2866even then it would be months between towns
@eddieromanov
3 ай бұрын
A lesser known but critical contribution by German immigrants during the Revolution was the Pennsylvania Long Rifle. German gunsmiths introduced rifling to the settlers in Appalachia. This was a massive improvement over the smooth bore muskets used by the English.
@MrSGL21
3 ай бұрын
the effective range of a musket was about 50 yards or 45 meters. The rifle could hit a man sized target out to about 250 yards or about 225 meters.
@eddieromanov
3 ай бұрын
@@MrSGL21 The marksmanship skill of 17 year old kids from Appalachia has been one of our nation’s best secret weapon since the very beginning.
@Deadxman616
3 ай бұрын
Yeah nothing caused more havoc during revolution then these proto-snipers and the disregard of honorable combat as they took out The British chain of command.
@thesugardaddy7037
2 ай бұрын
@@Deadxman616 To be fair the brits did the same thing to us. They also had rifles believe it or not.
@dennisweidner288
Ай бұрын
@eddieromanov German boat men were also important.
@ugsome
3 ай бұрын
Oyster shells are not harder than rocks... but they are really sharp.
@joshualux8309
3 ай бұрын
Not only sharp but readily available near port city’s. They used to pack them into the soil to help slow down erosion and stabilize the ground from moving.
@matthewdhills
2 ай бұрын
@@joshualux8309I'm pretty sure oyster shells can also easily cause infections, especially when they didn't have antiseptics or antibiotics back in the day... it would basically be like throwing used needles you found in a New York alley
@TheWitchsHistorian
2 ай бұрын
Many of the old buildings in Savannah have oyster shells packed into the wall of thier buildings. They didn't stop but slowed down musket balls.
@nicholewilde4750
Ай бұрын
They are crazy sharp! When I first moved to South Carolina from Michigan, my husband cut his foot very badly on an oyster shell walking on the beach.
@PhycoKrusk
3 ай бұрын
Something that doesn't get mentioned in this video is that, in the wake of the Boston Massacre, the British soldiers were put on trial in Boston for murder. They were defended by that young lawyer by the name of John Adams, who did so not because he believed that the soldiers behaved correctly (he absolutely did not), but because he believed it was not sufficient for the government to state that an unlawful act had taken place, but that the government further had to prove that the act, in addition to being unlawful, was also unjustified. His defense was successful, and the soldiers were acquitted in light of the circumstances they were under, as the jury felt that in the same circumstances, they would likely have behaved the same way. John Adams would go on to assist Thomas Jefferson with the writing of the Declaration of Independence, which he was also one of the first to sign, served an important role in organization during the War for Independence, was instrumental in the creation of the Constitution, and would serve as the second President of the United States.
@djplong
3 ай бұрын
There are a LOT of stories buried in the American Revolution. I’ve lived and worked in the Boston area and, for the last 16 years, I’ve commuted to work literally next door to the National Park site near where the Battle of Lexington was fought - where re-enactments are done every year. Yes, Jefferson had slaves, but Oversimplified didn’t have time to point out that Jefferson also wanted to put an anti-slavery clause in the Declaration of Independence. He was forced to remove it because the southern colonies wouldn’t sign on with that clause still in it. One reason that they made note of Benedict Arnold is because of what happened in their “Part 2” - after being passed over for promotions and recognition for his efforts, he decided to betray the Continental Army by trying to give the plans of the military installation at West Point to the British so they could best attack and capture it. In this country, even now over 200 years later, you could literally hear people call someone a “Benedict Arnold” instead of using the actual word “traitor”. Washington was about to be run out of the Army for all of his defeats. There was a joke going around that, when the Crown’s forces would finally capture everyone, they would hang everyone ‘famous’ that they knew - but Washington would escape because the British military had only ever seen the back of his head. The Battle of Trenton would change all that. That’ll be in Part 2 as well. There are a lot of things that can be categorized in the “if that didn’t happen, the United States lose” column. If they didn’t get the artillery to Dorchester Height in time.. If the fog didn’t roll in at Brooklyn Heights. If the Hessian mercenaries didn’t get drunk in Trenton on Christmas. If the French weren’t supplying the overwhelming share of gunpowder and other arms to the Continental Army. If Franklin hadn’t brokered a peace deal. If the French ships didn’t *finally* show up when they did…. And there are a lot more of those… And there IS one fact that’s not too well known about the objections to all the taxes. The group we call “the Founding Fathers” are often referred to as ‘businessmen’. At times, it would be more accurate to call them “smugglers”. The taxes were levied on goods that were having their prices set artificially low and the smugglers basically couldn’t compete. That part doesn’t get a lot of recognition because it doesn’t fit the narrative of people sacrificing their livelihoods for the ideal of freedom and independence. But it WAS a contributing factor.
@DrFranklynAnderson
3 ай бұрын
“Washington would escape because the British had only seen the back of his head.” I actually LOL’d. I love that our sense of humor hasn’t changed from the very beginning of the country.
@merryrose6788
2 ай бұрын
In the mini-series Sons of Liberty, there are scenes with John Hancock trying to keep up his deal with Governor Hutchinson, that the Governor would "look the other way" at Hancock's non-taxed merchandise, as long as there was payment to the Governor.
@kellylyons1038
Ай бұрын
Things were different back then. It was normal to own slaves, it was what you did if you had any kind of wealth back then. I cant stand when people retroactively apply modern morality. As if people in 200 years wont look at all the pollution and waste the average person emits daily in the same way we view slaveowning 200 years ago. Its all atrocious, but people live according to the times and current moral code.
@brucegreenberg7573
3 ай бұрын
Incidentally, the monarch ruling Britain at that time was George III, a descendant of the German House of Hanover.
@drs-xj3pb
3 ай бұрын
Not merely a descendant of. He was simultaneously King of Great Britain and Elector of Hannover, the two realms being governed separately but with the same monarch. It was, naturally, easy to rent German troops from Hannover.
@gaelicfleur-de-lis6219
Ай бұрын
First of the Hanover kings to be born in Britain. On the whole, not a bad king but he shoulda looked to what happened to Charles I and what happens when you respond to valid criticism with total intransigence.
@thomasnelson6161
3 ай бұрын
A musket ball is the projectile a musket fires. Its a long barrel, front loaded, unrifled, single shot firearm.
@Chaosmite
3 ай бұрын
Right to bear arms is the right to defend ourselves from foreign AND domestic corrupt governments
@tomhalla426
3 ай бұрын
Knox being able to transport heavy artillery cross country, with essentially no roads, won the siege of Boston. Normally, the cannon would have been sent by boat down the Hudson, then by ship to Boston, but the British controlled all the water routes.
@livmashupmansen191
3 ай бұрын
Yes, Knox, Nathaniel Green, and others were key in logistics of spreading men and supplies supporting the war efforts.
@kathykexel7753
3 ай бұрын
The British also employed German mercenaries. When the British lost, they left many of the Hessian troops behind rather than pay for them to be returned to Europe.
@merryrose6788
2 ай бұрын
The story of the Headless Horseman grew from a true story of a Hessian soldier who lost his head from a canon ball. There are stories that actually, the Van Tassel family grew fond of a particular Hessian, who might have saved one of their children who was lost. The story is that when the Hessian was killed by the canon ball, the Van Tassel family had the Hessian buried in the Old Dutch Burying Ground, in an unmarked grave (via Wikipedia).
@moreanimals6889
3 ай бұрын
A musket ball is basically an old fashioned bullet. They were used in muskets, an old fashioned gun.
@HemlockRidge
3 ай бұрын
The real problem of "Rebels" vs the British Army was that the Minutemen's firearms were simple Fowling Pieces, trade muskets, and rifles. None of which would take a bayonet. The British combat strategy at this time was to march up in range of your musket actually hitting something, firing, and then an attack with bayonets. Not too many farmers will stand there trying to re-load their weapons while a line of gleaming bayonets is quickly approaching. No wonder they learned to hide behind trees and sniping.
@brealistic3542
3 ай бұрын
Milita were part time civilian soldiers in essence required to have a gun that defended their homes and towns. They only occasionally trained. This idea goes back to Jamestown and Pilgrim settlements when there was no such thing as any English Army units in America. Americans defended themselves.
@livmashupmansen191
3 ай бұрын
Yes, it was also an English tradition in the Medieval times, so it would make sense that the militia tradition would play a role in early settlement and American history because the colonists couldn't rely on England because of a huge ocean barrier.
@panzerdeal8727
3 ай бұрын
That green flag was a Regimental flag as we had no national flag at first.
@panzerdeal8727
3 ай бұрын
Yup. Second ammendment and the Militia acts were written just after that war. The Militia acts were later repealed, but they set the precedent. Now apply that to modern day tech where airborne troops exist....
@livmashupmansen191
3 ай бұрын
The National Guards serve in every state and is used to bridge the American militia tradition and a standing army. The National Guards are in most (or all) states which fulfills 1) a regulated “militia” in each state and 2) can be federalized in times of crisis by the President (or is it the Executive Branch? I know they have been federalized in WWI & WWII).
@panzerdeal8727
3 ай бұрын
Oh yeah. Wall street New York, actually named because of a wall there.
@gregchambers6100
3 ай бұрын
Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were on the committee to write a declaration of principles. Franklin and Adams quickly assigned Jefferson to be the writer. Jefferson hesitated but agreed to the task because Franklin and Adams were on many committees and Jefferson wasn't. Jefferson then wrote the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable..." Franklin interrupted. "Sacred and undeniable? SMACKS of the Pulpit! Smacks of the pulpit!" Jefferson said that he chose every word with precision and Franklin said: "These truths are self evident are they not? Fine. Self evident it is." So all humans have these words to be their own: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
@WILTALK
Ай бұрын
Everyone believes that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but he had help from a church mouse who lived with Ben Franklin. The truth was exposed in the film " Ben an Me". The mouse also invented and discovered all the things Ben Franklin was given credit for.
@gregchambers6100
Ай бұрын
@@WILTALK Yes. Franklin edited out "sacred and undeniable" and put in "self evident"
@MalachiCo0
Ай бұрын
"Why weren't these western parts of British America joining the 13 colonies?" North of the colonies was Maine, which was part of Massachusetts at the time. To the north of those big lakes in the middle of all that land was Quebec, a bunch of Frenchmen that had no stake in this. To the south of that was Louisiana Territory, mostly a bunch of Native Americans and a few Frenchmen that also had no stake in this. On the southern coast was the territories of West and East Florida, until recently was Spanish territory but was now being very lightly settled by recent English immigrants still loyal to the crown. The American colonies now in rebellion had a history of self rule ranging between half a century and a few centuries, and as such were largely culturally distinct from both England and each other by this point. Reasons for the founding of these colonies varied, but most of them originated with some kind of political or religious disagreement with the English Anglican establishment. Between Louisiana and the colonies in rebellion was the Native Reserve, which was created as a thank you to the Native tribes for backing the British during the 7 Years War. This one was one of the points of contention between the British and the Americans, as the Americans wanted to expand out there but not being allowed to by the British. By the time of the Revolution, a bunch of people primarily descended from the Scots would start settling there illegally and take up the fight too, though being the outskirts of the empire meant that little battles of importance were fought here. Tl;dr, there's a gulf of a cultural and political difference between the 13 colonies and the other British holdings in America at the time.
@mccaine1
3 ай бұрын
As to your question about the colonies only being on the Atlantic coast (~9:21), the areas to the south and west did not have organized colonial governments, though the land was claimed by Britain. The colonies of the coastal areas had governments, and sufficiently large populations to build serious resentment of British rule. Samuel Adams was a brewer in addition to his political activities. His name is now used by a major brewery in Boston, MA.
@johndoe-lp9my
3 ай бұрын
Also, by British law, no settlements could be made past the Appalachian Mountains.
@fastauntie
2 ай бұрын
Those western areas had hardly any people of British or any other European descent living in them. The Appalachian Mountains run from Maine to northern Georgia and were a significant physical barrier to travel and settlement, though they didn't stop it entirely. Also, not surprisingly, the Native Americans who lived there didn't want more Europeans moving in. They had support from the French, who claimed the area in theory but didn't have many settlements there, and didn't want the British expanding into it. Then, because the Britsh government didn't want to provoke conflicts with them, it forbid any of its colonists to settle there. So those western areas were claimed by Britain but had no British population to speak of.
@dennisweidner288
Ай бұрын
@mccaine1 Plus the British did not want the colonists moving west. They were in the process of creating a Native American state west of the Appalachians.
@dennisweidner288
Ай бұрын
@dennisweidner288 0 seconds ago @mccaine1 Plus the British did not want the colonists moving west. They were in the process of creating a Native American state west of the Appalachians.
@VoltronLion
3 ай бұрын
As an American I am happy to see that you are interested in our history. Truth be told we had help from a very famous German general trained by Frederick the great to win the war of independence against the British. His name was baron von Steuben I believe. He was such a good general with good tactics that America adopted his tactics all the way to 1812 and possibly after as he was very successful in battle. He is also a grandfather in the German community in America from my understanding.
@brianhums5056
3 ай бұрын
Looking forward to Part 2! Oversimplified, The USA Civil War is a great video also!
@Megafragger_
2 ай бұрын
"How can they force imports?" That's ghe beauty of absolute monarchies
@gaelicfleur-de-lis6219
Ай бұрын
Great Britain wasn't an absolute monarchy. France, Spain and Russia certainly were. But Britian was a constutional monarchy. Still is I think. The monarch may declare war, but good luck funding it without Parliamentary approval
@gregchambers6100
3 ай бұрын
Not many know this, but Jefferson got his 100 slaves when he married Martha Skelton as a dowry. John Wayles was Sally Hemming's and Martha's father. So Sally naturally took care of the house for Martha, her half sister. When Martha died, Thomas Jefferson and Sally grieved together for their loss. Thomas invited, his slave, Sally, to Paris, where she was free, to care for his diplomatic home, where he started the French Revolution, and they fell in love, but couldn't be married because of mixed race.
@user-mg5mv2tn8q
3 ай бұрын
Thomas Jefferson most definitely did NOT start the French Revolution. Hold onto something solid so you don't fall down in shock when you read this ... The French Revolution was started by the French.
@gregchambers6100
3 ай бұрын
@@user-mg5mv2tn8q So you're saying the Declaration of Independence wasn't read, nor started any revolutions that came after it.
@BenjaminAlternate
3 ай бұрын
@@user-mg5mv2tn8q yeah good point... but greg is talking about how the american revolution had a HUGE direct impact/inspiration for the french revolution...so yeah--tom jeff
@helenavalentine9718
3 ай бұрын
He “fell in love” with Sally Hemings? Or, he used his power as a slave owner to use his wife’s half-sister, whom neither he nor his wife freed, as his concubine? It’s not necessary to make up a glowing version of his life to recognize his other achievements.
@user-mg5mv2tn8q
3 ай бұрын
@@gregchambers6100 People are influenced by their influences. Does that make the influences responsible for what those people did? You might as well say the American Revolution was started by the ancient Greek political philosophers and Guy Fawkes.
@HowDareYouSpeakToMe
Ай бұрын
George Washington was a super humble dude, he didn't really like authority foisted on him
@golfr-kg9ss
3 ай бұрын
The 2nd part is the best part. You'll even get some German involvement. One was very important but only gets a brief mention. Maybe do a little digging into Friedrich Wilhelm August Heinrich Ferdinand von Steuben.
@AlaskanGlitch
3 ай бұрын
While there were a total of 48,647 English soldiers involved in the American revolution, what many are not aware is that there were also tens of thousands of German mercenaries involved fighting on behalf of England. Great Britain hired 34,000 German soldiers, of which more than half, 18,000, were from the Principality of Hesse-Kassel, which resulted in all German soldiers being generalized as “Hessians.” The remaining soldiers were from states such as Anhalt-Zerbst, Anspach-Beyreuth, Brunswick, Hannover, Hesse-Hanau, and Waldeck. The Germans suffered 5,300 casualties and 3,000 desertions during their involvement in the American revolution. Only 19,000 Germans returned to Germany after the war. The rest remained in the US seeking new opportunities. Without the German "mercenaries" the English had absolutely no chance of defeating the American revolutionaries, and they knew it.
@debbiekerr3989
3 ай бұрын
Hello, I'm glad you are interested in American history. I have a German great-grandmother who loved America and taught her 15 children to love America. Germans make great Americans. 👍
@merryrose6788
2 ай бұрын
Germans brought the tradition of the Christmas Tree. Thank you very much:)
@dem2917
Ай бұрын
My German ancestors came to America in 1748 and settled in the wilderness of central Pennsylvania. The first son, born in 1752, was named Adam. He joined a regional militia for 90 days, which joined the American Army to cross the Delaware River with Gen. Washington on Christmas morning in 1776.
@karenkettering1725
3 ай бұрын
During the Sugar tax, there was still a large contingency of British soldiers in America. They would inspect incoming ships as they landed in the ports and check to see where their cargo came from. If it wasn't GB, back you go.
@elkins4406
3 ай бұрын
Oyster shells are very sharp. It's quite easy to lacerate yourself on them by accident just by handling them. I would not want to have a barrage of them thrown at me by an angry mob. (They also probably stank of rotting seafood by the time they were easily available to pick up and throw at soldiers!) As for gun ownership back in colonial times, bear in mind that even by the 18th century, western Europe had already eliminated many of its large predators, or pushed them to the furthest reaches of settled land. Even leaving aside encounters with the native Americans, the colonies still had wolves, bears, and mountain lions to worry about. Large predators were far more numerous in close proximity to human settlement than they were in most of 18th century western Europe.
@fatrat69
2 ай бұрын
the right to keep and bear arms is to keep our freedom and to defend our rights from all enemies foreign and domestic
@panzerdeal8727
3 ай бұрын
Musket ball..ammunition for a muzzle loading flintlock weapon.
@LostinMayberry
Ай бұрын
My husband is descended from a German soldier mercenary from Wanfried. He and his brother both remained in the new nation after the war. Christian married a woman whose father had been a Revolutionary War soldier. People were very forgiving!
@Vortex1988
3 ай бұрын
There was a lot of British territory west and north of the original 13 colonies that first made up the United States. The first 13 colonies or states were Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia. Territory west of that was largely unsettled and was dangerous to travel into because the natives would often fight any of the British or colonists who traveled west. Britain pretty much forbid the colonists from traveling into the western territories for fear that they would be killed by the natives. I believe they also made a treaty with the natives promising that no one would settle west of the 13 colonies. The British did also have some settlements in Canada, but they were never considered to be a part of the US or the 13 colonies. The founding fathers did look to George Washington to lead the rebellion because he had military experience. There was some speculation that he would be up to the task because he was still somewhat inexperienced compared to other British or former British Generals, but he is ultimately who they went with and it paid off in the end. Samuel Adams was one of the founding fathers, but in more recent history, his name has become an American beer brand. The right to bare arms was ultimately put into the bill of rights, so the country could better defend itself. It is what helped win the Revolutionary War against the British. The United States also did not have a standing army until.... after World War II? I could be wrong about that, but I don't think we had a dedicated budget and reserves of trained soldiers until WWII and after. Prior to that, the country had to rely on trained militias that the government could call on to fight wars if we were ever attacked. That meant that civilians needed to be able to supply their own weapons.
@Furluge
2 ай бұрын
17:15 - Technically his bank owned the slaves. That's one of the complicating reasons he never managed to free them during his lifetime.
@livmashupmansen191
3 ай бұрын
The 2nd Amendment part about “the regulated militia” was due to the success of the Revolutionary War. Before that, the early (English) settlers had set up local militias similar to what they had in England, partially due to the British Civil War and other reasons-but the colonists couldn't wholly rely on British support because they were across the ocean.
@Maria_Erias
3 ай бұрын
16:34 Washington wasn't a great tactician; he lost far more battles than he won. But what he was, was a fantastic leader. He knew how to rally and motivate his men, and he was also pretty good at listening to advice from others, as he understood his own weaknesses fairly well.
@badguy1481
3 ай бұрын
"Samual Adams" name was also used to name a popular beer in the USA.
@yeshevishman
2 ай бұрын
Made in Boston, where he lived...hence why it was named for him.
@JusBidniss
3 ай бұрын
17:34 A musket ball is a type of bullet for the firearms of the time. The tip of a modern 'bullet' is actually _the_ bullet, and the rest is a cartridge containing the gunpowder, plus the primer charge which is struck by the firing pin to ignite the powder. Colonial muskets did not use such convenient rounds (they hadn't been invented yet), and were loaded from the front end, the muzzle. Preparing a muzzle-loader for firing involved pouring in gunpowder, some form of wadding such as a bit of paper to help contain it for firing, and the musket ball, then tamping it all in place using the ramrod, a special long, thin tool that was mounted on the underneath side of the barrel when not in use. The gunpowder would have been set off by a bit of flint that was part of the cocked hammer, which when the trigger was pulled struck a piece of steel and produced a spark (similar to modern cigarette lighters), igniting the powder and propelling the ball. Later innovations were developed where the bore of the barrel was given rifling grooves that would impart a spin to the bullet, making it more accurate, and these grooves are where we get the term 'rifle'. But colonial muskets would have been smooth-bore, and shot these round balls less accurately, at shorter distances, with lower muzzle velocity than more modern weapons. Counter-intuitively, these low-velocity balls actually did more damage than smaller, faster modern bullets. If struck by a modern bullet in the arm, one might expect a relatively small wound. The larger, slower musket balls would obliterate the arm, the bone, and would usually require amputation due to the extensive damage. Anyway, besides the high-level gun lore, the insult to the British of melting down a statue of their king to make ammunition against his army shows us somewhat of the spirit of these early patriots.
@jjw1072
3 ай бұрын
It's extremely unlikely that the Colonies would have been able to defeat the British without help from France, Spain and Holland. France is our oldest ally.
@Anon54387
3 ай бұрын
France didn't actually join until it was a near certainty that American would win. The Americans were on their own for a long time, and France was seeing which way the wind would blow.
@michael-1680
3 ай бұрын
@@Anon54387 Which, to be honest, is kind of the way most countries behave, even today. Nobody wans to support the losing side.
@merryrose6788
2 ай бұрын
The colonies were on their way to defeating the British. As Thomas Paine noted in Common Sense, Britain is a small island, and America is a huge continent. Also, an ocean between them. The small island can't control the huge continent. Despite the battles lost, the colonists would have outlasted the Brits' desire to send troops and spend money on a war on its colonists.
@ginnyjollykidd
2 ай бұрын
George Washington was a humble man wanting only the best for America,even when became the first president. I think the "cut the crap" line was humor only.
@WILTALK
Ай бұрын
After the won their independence Washington was offered the title of kIng, but he refused saying we just faught a war to get rid on one and now you want to install another?
@panzerdeal8727
3 ай бұрын
Colonel Washington had served in the British army in the French and indian wars earlier.
@ltimbo
Ай бұрын
Specifically, the right to bear arms was intended to enable states to form militias as the early U.S. government did not want to maintain a standing army. The fear of a tyrant using a standing army to seize power was a primary concern. So indirectly, the people have the right to bear arms to prevent tyranny.
@GeococcyxVelox
3 ай бұрын
Defense against a tyrannical government but while politically incorrect it was true, most of the Native American tribes had a raiding culture with varying degrees of violence
@BenjaminAlternate
3 ай бұрын
doesn't matter that it was politically correct.. its just true. You could just omit that part about politically correct. Why? Because being politically correct is pointless, all it means is that one is trying to keel over like a dog submitting to our modern-day tyrants.
@ericbarlow6772
3 ай бұрын
Yes the Native Tribes gave as good as they got until they were overwhelmed by sheer numbers of settlers and the force of the federal government. The romantic idea of the ‘noble savage’ is a myth. That’s not to say they weren’t shafted by broken promises and treaties. They were. But it’s naive to think they lived in harmony with everyone and everything.
@dem2917
Ай бұрын
Many of the tribes were British allies. When the Revolution was underway, Indians and British loyalists (called Tories), under the command of the British Army, waged war against American militia and civilians along the western frontier. The frontier was about 150 miles west of New York City and Philadelphia.
@kennethsteele8808
3 ай бұрын
The reason we have a 2nd amendment (an armed person is a citizen - an unarmed person is a servant )
@mycroft16
3 ай бұрын
I had family on the side of the colonists, in the British regulars, AND some who were among the Hessians the British pressed into service. Kind of funny to think about looking back.
@LifesGuardian
2 ай бұрын
At the time in question it was the British that insisted on guns. It was cheaper than keeping a standing army in a foreign land long term. After the revolution, however, it took on another meaning. To stand against tyranny, and to overthrow it if it grew oppressive. Fun fact: We invited Quebec to become part of the U.S. They, politely, declined.
@HarveyTalksPrison
3 ай бұрын
The Dutch settled New York. Ir was Nieuw Amsterdam
@walkerlocker6126
3 ай бұрын
One thing I was taught in school but never seen mentioned here, is how Americans had the advantage of knowing the land. I mean, imagine you're a soldier in the UK, who has then been sent to an actual desert, or desolate mountains. These are the places we played in as kids. We knew the landscape, we knew how to utilize it, and that's how farmers and shop clerks took down an army
@OkieJay
3 ай бұрын
You should really check out Fat Electrician's video called, "Angry Old Veteran vs. 700 Redcoats - Samuel Whittemore". It goes along with what is shown in this video at 11:07 when the British Army is retreating from Concord and fleeing back to Boston. Samuel Whittemore was an angry old man that attacked the British army by himself. Whittemore was fearless and tough as nails.
@claypigeon7063
3 ай бұрын
As a Whitmore who rarely ever sees his name in media, þis really sent me for a loop. I’ll have to look into Samuel Whittemore.
@OkieJay
3 ай бұрын
@@claypigeon7063 If you watch Fat Electrician's video, he mentions what a huge family that Samuel Whittemore produced. He had a lot of children, and his children apparently also had lots of children. Who knows, you might be related to the guy, which would be pretty awesome.
@OMGitsaClaire
3 ай бұрын
George Washington’s best quality was humility. He was also really good at reading the room. He really loved the American people, which is why after two terms as president he decided to not run again so that America could progress under new leadership. He also did not want to become like a king. He didn’t want to become what he fought against.
@tchoupitoulos
Ай бұрын
Humility to a point. It was true that he was angling to be head general of the army, and it's also true that he would appear at the convention meetings in full military dress as a reminder of his background. He had all the ambition of a good officer.
@mimiv3088
3 ай бұрын
Just a silly fact: In Elementary School (kindergarten through 6th grade. Approximately 5 years old through 12 years old). We learned a little rhyme to remember when Christopher Columbus discovered America. " In 1492 Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue" 😊
@Lechuga1815
Ай бұрын
9:05, they weren't settled yet. Keep in mind there's a giant mountain range to the west of the colonies called the Appalachian mountains that kind of restricts short-term expansion.
@panzerdeal8727
3 ай бұрын
The history is great with the comedic effect..but the detail is facinating to me. As an old vet, I'm interested in HOW not just who and when. Just me I guess.
@molly1117
Ай бұрын
not just you. me too 😊
@MegaBeaches
3 ай бұрын
Btw the British hired thousands of Hessian soldiers to fight for them in this war. So many Germans were involved in this war as well. Some of which decided to stay and become the first German Americans in the USA.
@rg3388
3 ай бұрын
Please continue reacting to Oversimplified videos: American Civil War, Cold War, etc.
@bomberfox5232
Ай бұрын
Thomas Paine is my favorite founder. He was the most consistent advocate of liberty.
@livmashupmansen191
3 ай бұрын
You are correct that royals married each other for political alliances and it lead to massive inbreeding. Royals suffered from genetic maladies, deformities, and mental illnesses. For ex. King George III was mad (I don't know specifically what plagued him), Prince Alexander of Russia (Tsar Nicholas II’s son & Victoria’s descendant) suffered from hemophilia, and King Charles V of Spain had a remarkably distinct chin (look it up, it is strange to look at), etc.
@debbers
2 ай бұрын
There isn't much to say at this point, I'll comment after part 2! Great reaction so far my friend!
@KTKacer
3 ай бұрын
Once you do the revolution and the war of 1812, you really should 'backktrack' a bit and do The Fat Electrician's video on the Barbary Pirates and formation of the USA Navy. Oh and TFE's "Get off my lawn!" too... all that time period. It looks so different because that was only the 1st 13 states/colonies...37 states to go... (and, most of the biggest ones). There IS NO US yet... there are the British Colonies in the Americas. BUT the other part of your Q. why were the others not pissed? They had not been under British 'rule' as long... (*and, maybe the French/Spanish were worse?) Dunno, but makes sense. Musket ball was the "bullet" of that time. Great reaction.
@philipcone357
Ай бұрын
Chris you are correct after being left on their own since 1607 the Brits were “ we are protecting you”
@ChuckHuffmaster
3 ай бұрын
7:30 Oyster shells are hard as a rock and it has sharp edges that will cut you wide open if you took one to the face
@YTSparty
Ай бұрын
If you're curious about the role of Germans in the revolutionary war, look up Hessian Soldiers. “The Hessians were what we call ‘auxiliary forces,’ says Baer. “They weren’t individual soldiers who signed up with Britain to make money. They were troops raised by their respective German rulers, and then these rulers contracted with Britain to essentially rent out complete military units with their own commanders.” Some Germans were excited by the idea of traveling overseas. The pay was good, passage was free, and they’d get to explore a whole new part of the world. Among this group were naturalists, poets and even amateur paleontologists.
@jenniferhanses
3 ай бұрын
Re: Washington Short answer: Yes. Long answer: I'm not a Washington specialist, but from what I recall in college people noticed that Washington always behaved as if he would be a legendary and important man. He was very formal and reserved. But he also really did try to do what was best for people. One of the greatest things he ever did for us was step down after serving for two terms as president. He didn't get voted out. he could have kept going. He could have tried to begin a dynasty. And he didn't. He did believe in the who project of democracy and so held himself to very high standards. But yeah he seemed to think he would live a life that would leave a mark on history and so tried to live a life that would be remembered and be an example to everyone. Which often came off as stuck up.
@kdm71291
3 ай бұрын
Great information! It’s also interesting (and, perhaps, important to note that Washington was not a particularly good soldier, general, leader….but what he WAS was ambitious!
@jimreilly917
3 ай бұрын
And there were Americans who WANTED Washington to declare himself a king.
@erraticonteuse
2 ай бұрын
It would have been somewhat difficult for Washington to start a dynasty, as he didn't have any biological children. He had stepchildren but there's next to no chance that anybody outside of Virginia would have accepted any of them as a new king.
@DavidWetzell
Ай бұрын
Washington could have become king and chose not to become king. This was unprecedented. The president was given a lot of power because of the presumption that GW would be the president and was trustworthy. Later, critical changes became possible in the US because of the importance of the president, but it's also why we tend to have 2 big and dominant parties, both trying to dominate our politics.
@panzerdeal8727
3 ай бұрын
Recommendec : Paper Cartriges [ covers 1860 rifles and ammunition] 11 bang bang, [ features French muskets supplied to Colonials ] and British Muzzle loaders for detail. Paper cartridges has an interesting comparison of the 1860 Spencer rifle versus a Lee enfield of the 1940's.
@ssilent8202
3 ай бұрын
Something people don’t realize was when the constitution was written, the “well regulated militia” were the citizens. There wasn’t a big enough standing army, if one at all, so the idea was that citizens with their own guns would be the militia to defend their country from tyranny and enemies inside and out. TLDR: WE are the militia
@vashsunglasses
3 ай бұрын
Hard disagree. That interpretation is relatively new. There's nothing "well regulated" about just letting any random dipshit buy guns at Walmart.
@ssilent8202
2 ай бұрын
@@vashsunglasses calling the militia into service is the well-regulated aspect. People would bring their own guns when called and would be organized into the standing army.
@tommonk1243
3 ай бұрын
This is the main reason why we have the 2nd AMMENDMENT, remember our Armed Services is our Offense and The American Citizens are THE DEFENSE!!!!
@patrickpendergast898
3 ай бұрын
That “tea party” is why Americans drink coffee and have ever since. Lmao cancel culture was strong then too 😂
@TroIIingThemSoftly
3 ай бұрын
You've obviously never been to the south. Also, "cancel culture" isn't a real thing.
@WolfLove89
3 ай бұрын
Iced sweet tea is a thing
@Camouflage7734
Ай бұрын
Fun fact he left out: after the Boston Massacre, John Adams defended the 7 British soldiers in court and won. They were found not guilty of murder. Samuel Adams lead a march against them the next day. Also yes, Sam Adams is a lager beer we have here in the US lol
@Allaiya.
3 ай бұрын
First! And yeah, Oversimplied is a great channel. He’s got a lot of good stuff
@friendofvrgl
25 күн бұрын
There were British supporters on my dad’s side of the family. One of them being dragged out in the middle of the night and beaten up. He survived. During Major General William Tryon's raid on Danbury, he used as his headquarters the home of Nehemiah Dibble, Jr., which, it was said, was not burned later by the British because of the owner's pro-British sympathies.
@ericminton6084
3 ай бұрын
Funny story...They say King George's first language was German. The British Royals have a lot of German blood in it. They even had to change their name during WW2 to make their family name sound less German.
@tomhalla426
3 ай бұрын
WWI, not WWII.
@ericminton6084
3 ай бұрын
@@tomhalla426 cool I knew it was one or the other
@robertphelps1574
3 ай бұрын
His first language was English
@ericminton6084
3 ай бұрын
@@robertphelps1574 from what they are saying that he could barely speak it, but yeah believe that if you want.
@HoustonmechanicR-xt9ey
3 ай бұрын
Yes the fog. In many wars you can sometimes point to one tiny detail that if were different it could have changed the entire outcome of the war. Such as a storm, blizzard, or even a spy getting caught. Sometimes the most insignificant thing, getting stung by a bee, stopping to rest, can cause the most dramatic shift in an outcome. The fog is considered one of these in American history.
@jenniferhanses
3 ай бұрын
Re: Could you please stop? This is actually pretty close to the truth. The Americans at the Continental Congress, or at least a majority of them, felt that they were extremely loyal to the crown. They didn't want to fight. They sent letters asking for the king begging him to intercede with parliament and sort things out.
@elkins4406
3 ай бұрын
As is often the case with far-flung colonies, or even the provinces of large Empires, the colonists had a very strong "good Emperor" belief about the King. They really, really wanted to believe that anything about the government they didn't like was all the work of the Evil Parliament, while "if only the King knew!" he would be on their side. It's a very common social delusion, and it took a while for people to accept that King George was not actually their friend.
@TheAngryXenite
3 ай бұрын
@elkins4406 Well, it's not always a delusion so much as a polite way to demand change without directly insulting your liege's judgment. Blaming the ministers for "misleading" the king was done to push an agenda while allowing the king to save face if he acceded to their demands. People usually knew it wasn't true and that the monarch was more involved than they claimed, but you can't outright say you're against the rightful monarch.
@elkins4406
3 ай бұрын
@@TheAngryXenite Wow, that is an excellent point, and one that I had honestly never considered. It seems so obvious once you point it out. Thanks!
@jameswoodard4304
3 ай бұрын
"What's a musket ball?" It's a ball you shoot out of a musket. They turned a statue of the king into thousands of rounds of ammunition.
@pyronuke4768
3 ай бұрын
To answer the question of oyster shells, at the time oysters were a really common food for the lower class, they were like the cheap microwave dinners of the 1700's Boston. You could walk down a street and find piles of discarded shells literally everywhere. In addition to being plentiful ammunition for throwing, chipped or broken shells could be quite sharp. And finally, rotting oysters smell terrible, a final insult to injury when one is getting pelted by them.
@dougearnest7590
Ай бұрын
Attacking the enemy with oyster shells. Now THAT'S soldiering.
@brealistic3542
3 ай бұрын
Yes the right to bear arms comes from this. American milita already were required to own a gun. They fought hand in hand with the British to kick the French out.
@TroIIingThemSoftly
3 ай бұрын
🤦♂
@macl9395
2 ай бұрын
Another German (Prussian) who played a big role in American history was Baron von Steaben. He trained American soldiers during the U.S. revolution. He brought order and discipline to a to a very unorganized army. He even put these lessons into a book that was used throughout the American army.
@amandaleighbump2161
2 ай бұрын
A note on the Sugar and Stamp Acts. The Sugar Act taxed specifically foreign sugar, so while not technically forcing imports of sugar from other British colonies, it strongly incentivized it. In fact, the tax actually lowered an already existent tax on foreign sugar but provided for stronger enforcement measures, hence the backlash. The Stamp Act was more controversial not because it was so expensive but because it was an *internal* tax, ie a tax on goods produced inside the colonies for sale in the colonies. All taxes to that point had been taxes on imports and the colonists argued that internal taxes could only be levied by colonial legislatures. Colonists were far from unified on this point and the war was in many ways a civil war once it started. In my native South Carolina, the colonial government in Charleston strongly opposed actions like the Stamp Act because they saw it as usurping their authority. Settlers in the backcountry, though, were often more resentful of the government in Charleston than of the king (unless they were Presbyterians). In fact, most of the many battles fought in SC were fought between Loyalist and Patriot militias, with few to no British regular troops present.
@leroyshupe6211
3 ай бұрын
TRUE TRUE
@arthurhaeckeriii6043
Ай бұрын
The colonists who fought at Lexington and Concord were part of large group of "patriots " called Minute Men who pledged to be ready to fight " On a minutes notice".
@Oklahoma_is_me
3 ай бұрын
Oversimplified is an amazing cc!
@mazdaman2315
3 ай бұрын
Closed captions?
@Oklahoma_is_me
3 ай бұрын
@@mazdaman2315 content creator sorry 😖
@commonsence1129
3 ай бұрын
So glad to see you reacting to Oversimplified. Loved the video keep them coming.
@mycroft16
3 ай бұрын
A lot of people are going to get this a little wrong. The right to bears arms is a little more complicated than to defend ourselves from tyranny. As colonies, men were by British law, required to own at least a certain type of weapon amd amount of ammo for civil defense. This channel gets the British march on Concord to get the rebel caches of weapons wrong. They were coming to secure their OWN caches for their citizen guards from falling into rebel hands. This is where the confrontation happened and the rebels ended up getting the caches. After independence the colonies actually did not form a country. They formed a loose confederation of independent nations. Each had its own currency, military, etc. And they came close to full on conflict a couple times. The Constitution did not contain a national military (disbanded post revolution) because the Founders feared a standing army being used by a tyrant. So they provided the 2nd amendment with the intent that citizens could be called up to FORM a national army or state army as needed. There are some frequently overlooked words in the 2nd A. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the State..." If you read the debates and public speeches from them at the time the idea was that there would be a federal minimum of training so that when called up everyone would have the same knowledge of formations, military procedure, etc. Well regulated meant this. Owning weapons came with the requirement of a basic military training and service if called upon. It was NOT for citizens to protect themselves from tyranny. At least not in the direct sense many think it was. It prevented a military being under the direct control of Congress or the President.
@alvinestep6492
Ай бұрын
The reason they threw oyster shells was because they were very, very sharp. Instead of hitting hard, they would slice the skin open.
@romanmcmillan7542
2 ай бұрын
Columbus refused to believe that he had reached a but instead that he had reached the indies. He projected that the circumference of the world was much smaller than what was commonly held at the time, (actually quite close to our modern measurements) and that’s why he believed he could reach the indies so easily through the Atlantic.
Пікірлер: 1,4 М.