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.
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
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.
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.
@@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
@@sakisaotome6753Istanbul, not Constantinople, now it's Istanbul not Constantinople, why did Constantinople get the works, that's nobody's business but the Turks.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@11:51 the green flag was Ethan Allen's. The Green Mountain boys wore green tunics to better blend with the vegetation. The revolutionaries fought using "guerilla warfare tactics" Hiding in the bushes and trees. And flanking the British , who were marching out in the open. This is how the colonists had success against the British.
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
The battle of Lexington and Concord cemented why our founding fathers wrote in the Constitution "the right to bare arms". This one battle proved that a tyrants and kings will disarm it's citizens to have absolute authority over the citizens and the importance to for it's citizens to defend themselves.
THAT FOG WAS A MIRACLE!!!! it was one of the British soldiers who obviously got nervous or anxious that fired first because it wasn’t any of the colonists. Leave it to a nervous British soldier .😂 That Fog in New York was a miracle, and for the longest time, and even today, some people who are Christians believe in divine intervention, and since there has never been any type of fog on that island at all, but just that once, at least, for the first couple hundred years that people inhabited this land, It was either a coincidence or divine intervention, because it saved those American troops and General Washington news, and said himself they couldn’t afford to lose anymore!! He made sure that they had fires going through the night so the British would think they were camping and sleeping because he knew that the British would come after them first thing in the morning after daylight and George Washington major every one of his troops had gotten across the river in a boat before he left!! That’s true leader ship, because any general colonel or commander that leads from the front and is the first one to hit the ground in the last one to leave is the type of leader that every unit needs!!! If it were not for that fog, all of those American militia would’ve been killed for sure!! The minute men could fight, but they weren’t as well trained as the British military. The people in the USA are in the Americas. We’re always crazy having boxing and wrestling contest and these guys and families were in good shape because most of them were farmers and had hard jobs.. of course, they were going to be tough and strong compared to the spoiled British military. The British military had better weapons, but hand-to-hand combat. The Americans had them beaten.. The British were just trying to get the colony’s Own Arsenal weapons to try to disarm us. NOO!!!! not our weapons you don’t ! Here in the USA, we have animals that eat you and plus there were the Indians and guns were a means of hunting and protecting ourselves, and they still are because criminals running wild all over America because progressive district, attorneys and mirrors don’t ever charge these people with hideous crimes they commit, so we do need to defend ourselves, and even more now because we have more criminals and gangs from all over the world plus terrorists. Depending on where somebody attacks depends on what kind of fight that they’re gonna get because these people coming into the country pretty much know where they can get by with stuff and where they can’t. Republican states or the state that aren’t pure centralized government control believing we have too much big fat bureaucracy to pay for but doesn’t want at least 150 or so administrative agencies wants to let business business and not strangle everything by over controlling it like the Democrats socialist do, and this infrastructure bill that was passed a couple years ago- nothing has been done because the regulations are so horrific that they can’t do anything which is why I’m praying Trump gets reelected!!! Our weapons now are for self protection, and if anybody gets into our country, you damned right we’re going to protect our land. Nobody uses weapons against our government and that’s bullshit except that some hoodlums do you shoot cops sometime and Truthfully, anybody that kills a government employee that works for the police with your local state or federal should get life in prison or the death penalty, because either which way they cost about the same amount of money. I’m more for life in prison, but it just depends on how full it gets in there.
Your words are beautiful 😍 but one thing you left out. So many boats showed up, that it caused a commotion, General George Washington went to see and some body suggested to Washington with all those boats we can walk across. And three pontoon bridges were used. It wasn't George Washington crossing in a boat on a horse.
The throwing of oyster shells made things worse not because oyster shells are heavy but because they're Sharp. I've definitely cut the bottoms of my feet more than a few times stepping on a stray shell while walking the Beach. Samuel Adams is the name of a very popular beer in Boston.
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.
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.
Yes. The right to protect oneself from the government is directly a result of us never wanting to be oppressed like the British did. The 3rd amendment is also a direct result as British troops would seize colonial homes and use them as barracks housing.
Commonly misconstrued. 2A is a direct result of not wanting the president to have control of a standing military in case they turned tyrant. So the people were allowed to own arms so they could be called up to service if needed. The first clause of 2A says that the right exists because a well regulated militia is necessary to defend the nation. There right in 2A is the purpose it exists. It came with the requirement to participate in basic training so if called up everyone had the same basic military competency as well. Madison and Hamilton both spoke about this in the Federalist Papers as well as it being discussed during the 1787 Constitutional Convention (see Madison's notes on debates).
Maine was part of Massachusetts during the Colonial period. Also prior to the end of the American Revolution formal British colonies were not allowed beyond a line running through the Appalachian Mountains, thus no formal objections to British actions.
As an American and life-long resident of New England, I still say that our biggest ally against the British was the Atlantic Ocean. In my personal belief, if we weren't separated by a vast amount of water, the Brits would have won. It just took so damn long to get here on a sailing ship and during the ship's travel, many people would die before they even reached land.
Many of the further westward lands were owned by the British but unsettled or sparsely populated, whereas the coast was crowded, had direct trade with England, and so were richer. They had the money to raise militias, and so that's where most of the fighting happened. America at first didn't have an army at all, but militias, which were volunteer groups made up of farmers who came together, got a little bit of training by someone who (hopefully) had served in the military. They had to bring their own gun, but many in the cities did not own one and therefore could not fight unless they could afford to buy one. At least, not until the Continental Army was formed, and anyone without their own gun would be supplied with one. This is why the "Right to Bear Arms" became so important. It was originally about a civilian's duty to remain vigilant and be ready to take up arms once again, in case our new government turned out to be WORSE than the one we left. (Considering many people assumed Washington would be President-for-Life, this was a legit worry. Washington himself chose to only serve for 8 years, and in the 20th century this became law.) Of course, in modern times with drones and most of America's military effectiveness being thanks to aircraft, owning an automatic rifle is a slight inconvenience to the insanely massive and powerful American Armed Forces. 9:26 - Samuel Adams is a popular brand of beer in America. He ran a brewery, and so he used his beer hall for meetings and his funds from beer sales during the early days of the war. 17:35 - "Musket ball" in German is "Musketenkugel." If you still aren't sure since this is 1700s tech and Europeans aren't as gun-nut as Americans, muskets were the most common type of rifle in the world at that time, using black powder and musket balls. Have you ever considered trying music reactions, maybe on Patreon since RU-vid doesn't always like those? Because "Hamilton" is a musical about the lead-up to the American Revolution, the struggles of the war and how it affected average men, and the first few years of trying to set up a new country, as told with a focus on Alexander Hamilton, who rose from an orphaned immigrant and son of a prostitute to Washington's Right-Hand Man. If not, at least watching the musical on your own. It's a fun dive into accurate history put to music. Although, the singing is SO FAST even I can't understand some of it and have to look at subtitles.
Those areas outside the colonies on the map were actually part of the colonies. The map depicts the colonies in their current state form, but the borders of the colonies actually extended westward to include the areas not depicted as colonies.
Yes, colonists were angry about taxation without representation. Fast forward 250 years, and America does the same with its colonies in Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. As for the 2nd Ammendment, or the right to bear arms, I believe that the Ammendment is often misunderstood and we have ignore its purpose. It was proposed by James Madison and ratified in 1791. It was proposed to ensure that citizens could defend their country and to a lesser extent their individual rights because there wasn't an easy way to summon help if someone needed it and people were often on their own. It is quite simple being one sentence long and clearly 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."
I have lots of ancestors who fought for the Continental Army for the Patriot cause during the Revolutionary War. In researching them, it is evident that they all felt compelled to rebel because of there being this overwhelming sense of grave injustices committed by the British Crown that just kept coming one after another piling on top of each other making it get to a point where it was nearly impossible for colonists to earn a decent living, let alone make any profits through over taxation and monopolies and the British also restricted their trade, and would not let them trade with other countries. They only could sell their goods to Britain, at prices Britian set, and then also denied them a say about any of it in parliament. This is what really ticked them off....not just a tea tax, it was all the taxes combined, and the whole "no taxation without representation." But yea, they were brave, and had a lot of heart, and probably a little bit crazy too, considering they had no army at first and literally took on the most powerful army on the planet at the time...
In a book titled "The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America," Carol Anderson argues that plantation owners in the American South wanted the Second Amendment to ensure that they had the guns needed to crush any slave revolt they might have faced.
I'm not sure if Washington wanted the job. Fighting the British is up there but the most important thing George ever did was leave office. People wanted him to be Prez another term. Him leaving set a precedent on surrendering power despite being there for the taking.
Absolutely that is the basis for the right to bear arms. "In order to maintain a well regulated militia.." The term 'well regulated' means that the militia should have the weapons necessary to defend themselves against a regular army.
You have come to the right conclusion. "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." In the document that was sent by New York and Virginia to ratify the Constitution, the issue raised was for the right of bearing arms. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia. It was to provide for an "unorganized" armed citizenry prepared to defend themselves against a foreign invader OR a domestic tyrant. For the law-abiding, individual citizenry within each state to defend itself: again, as a major check against the ability of would-be tyrants and the ability to overthrow the government in the event it becomes tyrannical. Just as the freedom of speech ensured that citizens have the right to expose a corrupt or tyrannical government, the safe-guarding of our freedom to vote (without corrupting influences) is a check-mate to tyranny...and so on with all our Constitutional rights. But it takes a citizenry of upright standards and character to provide and maintain a just nation. So... there is that....
To answer a couple of your questions: 1: YES, the "right to bear arms" was enshrined in the Constitution precisely because of British oppression and tyranny. There is a deeper principal behind it, however: if the British government could become corrupt, tyrannical and oppressive towards its own people (and it most certainly had, many times over!), *ANY* government can, no matter from where it stems or the principles on which it's organized. 2. There was a difference between the American colonies, the northern (Canadian) colonies and the rest of the landmass which were simply territories with little formal governance at all. The American colonies were the earliest established, most populated and formally organized; they, therefore, desired more autonomy than the other places.
5:59 - While I think you have a point, I had a teacher that told us that the reason why those old portraits look the same or like men is because the painters usually used their own face as a reference.
Not all of the people who were involved in the Revolution were regular people, the French Indian wars had occurred 1758 - 1760, some had military experience. George Washington was an example of one who fought, and had military experience prior to the Revolution.
It should be noted that France was a HUGE help for the colonists. They hated the British and would do anything to sabotage them, so they contributed heavily. If it wasn't for France's help, the colonists probably would have lost.
This is why Americans have a huge love of their country. They were emigrants from Europe that were rejected in their home counties and moved to the colonies to have freedom. The beat global powers to create a country where citizens freedom was #1. The first in the world. We cherish it still. A musket ball is a bullet
Oyster shells are as hard as rocks and have sharp edges. And YES!!! This is exactly why we have the right to bear arms. Our founding fathers knew that those in power could eventually have the ability too turn into tyrants. The people had to have a way to protect themselves from their own leadership. Thomas Jefferson wrote a lot about this.
Thomas Jefferson also was against slavery but was more worried about the war, even putting a few lines in the constitution against slavery but took it out so he wouldn't piss off the other states, they needed all the colonies to rebel for it to work.
I'm from Boston and it was so cool to see you do a reaction on the Revolution! You must come visit sometime, you would be so welcome here and it's an easy flight from Germany! We have amazing culture, history, global food, sports, nature, and without the HUGE city feel of NYC (though it's definitely worth visiting there too). Love your channel, keep the videos coming!
It's also worth noting that English colonies survived and Spanish colonies failed in part due to the English colonists right to bear arms being recognized, while the Spanish tried to protect settlements with military outposts. Over time decentralized force proved itself more sustainable and effective on the frontier, ingraining itself into the culture.
I don't think Colombus knew he DIDN’T discover Asia, but more specifically, India. Historians believe that Columbus believes HE found India for the rest of his life.
7:59 that’s exactly it. The Second Amendment was implemented because our country wouldn’t have been able to fight against the British army with just the Continental army alone. It was because of the smaller, but heavily armed local militias that eventually forced the British forces down. After that, it was decided that all Americans would always have the right to bear arms to fight against threats of tyranny in the future. It’s basically saying, “even if you don’t support a specific cause or choose a certain side, you’ll always be allowed to defend yourself and your property with armed force if needed.”
Yes in our constitution for one of the very reasons illustrated, moreover 43 state constitutions also have some form of right to bear arms, so even were the federal amendment repealed, 43 states would still be armed. We are a federal republic, 50 individual country states together but separate
The right to keep and bear arms is literally the difference between being free citizens or merely being subjects. Fundamentally, it is the ultimate defining requirement of a free society. The people of a nation where the citizens can't defend themselves from their government (in case of dire necessity) are only as free as they are *allowed* to be, which is to say, not actually free at all.
In the red land area the coast section you see with the original 13 colonies were organized and governed areas, the area to the left was largely unsettled by Europeans at the time - partly for to the vast size and partly due to the Appalachian mountains running from south to north along the majority of that area.
The Boston Massacre didn't directly lead to the Second Amendment, but it was a central event happening at the time that caused public opinion to support the idea. The main basis for it was the colonies being frontier areas with frequent clashes with the Native American populations (plus the fact that when you live in a cabin a day's ride away from the nearest town), you really feel a lot safer with muskets and pistols in your house. All of this led to some pretty deep resentment when British soldiers started executing warrantless searches, quartering troops in colonials' houses without permission, and the like. As an American, I feel safer with a firearm in my house, though I live in a very low-crime area. I can understand why this would seem really weird to Europeans. But really, it's kind of like the fact that I also have a fire extinguisher in my bedroom closet. My house is up to fire safety codes, our local fire fighters are just down the road a few blocks and have an excellent reputation...but I just feel safer with the ability to immediately respond to an emergency myself.
The top state, Maine, did not become a state until 1820. Before that the land was part of the Common Wealth of Massachusetts. That is why no frown face. My ancestors were already living here and we were frowning too. 9:08
American 2nd Amendment derives partly from the revolution, but the constant fighting with Natives was probably more signficant. Also the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow a Militia based national defence system, which is why it specifically mentions them and the wording specifically says 'bear arms' which means military service to ones state, this has been stretched by political groups in America to an almost unlimited personal ownership of weaponry for any purpose. Part of the reason people do not understand the 2nd amendments original intent was that militia system quickly failed in the war of 1812 which is when the US switched to a structured army which became responsible for national defence.
"How can you force someone to import something?" The American colonies were not an independent nation. They were British subjects, and had to obey edicts of the king.
9:04 simplified answer is that the "wilds" were SCARY to the English & English colonists back then! England didn't have any deep dark forests at the time. Also there's a mountain range
I'm from Boston originally but that is neither here nor there. Not that I'm an expert but throwing an oyster shell will cut you if hit in the face and can cause a serious laceration.
Also - the rights to bear arms was a British thing. They wanted the colonies armed and ready to defend the lands, whereas the Spanish took the total opposite approach and would never allow their colonies to be armed, and they were either slaughtered or gave up the land. This backfired on the British in a very big way 😊😊
The right to bear arms came because we were formed without a standardized regular standing army. We rebelled against the most powerful global power at the time. When we could still fall under British attack, they empowered the new United States citizens to own arms to fight for their lives to stop being ruled by the British king.
Alot of people forget the land that was being settled. Guns and culture in American society is deeply rooted on the fact the settlers of America were not expected to live very long. In a newer video you talked about birth rates. This applies to that life expectancy. This is a harsh land with harsh beginnings.
Again, you can’t discover a place where people already live. In their tiny world, Europeans kept discovering sh!t that people already lived on. That’s some insane level entitlement. Insane.
Brittish owned all of the territory in red. However most of that territory was unsettled. The US is massive supplying cities in those areas just wasn't possible at the time.
If you have time watch Turn. It’s basically a true story which Hollywood took some creative liberties. You will come away understanding many of the items in our Bill of Rights and Constitution. It’s a good series.
The rest of the people in the red area of the map weren't there yet, except a few brave souls who lived in solitude. It wasn't until the American Revolution people felt safe enough to venture out. The States weren't always as populous as now. If this is cool for you, look at the war of 1812. You may have heard of the Battle of New Orleans. There's even a song about it, by Johnny Horton. I don't know if it is on RU-vid; if it is, listen to the song first. Trust me.
i recommend you do a video on Kraut’s origins of American gun culture. he’s an Austrian dude who, i think lives in Germany, but also does English language videos. it’s not a very long video, but it’s excellently researched and really gets to the origins. they predate the Revolution by a century, at least. the Revolution was just the reason the Founders eventually *codified* the right to bear arms, within the context of being in a state militia. Madison was quite clear about that in Federalist 46. i exercise my rights, but the understanding that it was supposed to apply to anything other than the context of a state or local militia is wrong and ahistorical.
The right to bear arms is derived from the British Bill of Rights of 1689 which settled freedoms and rights in the wake of throwing out the Stuart monarchy- Britain established overthrowing kings long before the Americans who were just doing what the folks in the old country would do when sufficiently annoyed by the government- the 1689 Bill established the right of Protestants to have arms. The US carried over a lot of ideas from that Bill. The American revolution was less about throwing out the king than taking control of a government which in substance they had very little disagreement with. They wanted local control which they had long enjoyed thanks to historical precedent.
Just remember that had Mel Gibson's son not been killed we probably would have lost the war. Him losing his son lit a fire inside Mel and he and his militia single handedly destroyed the English. He was even able to take the life of the man who killed several of his family members.
It perturbed me that the European immigrants disguised themselves as Native Americans in order to have the Natives blamed for their violence against tea, tax, and the British.
8:00 Yes, the usual reason cited for the 2nd Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms, a.k.a. gun rights) is for citizens to be able to resist government militias, in memory of the way the colonies were controlled by soldiers. A lot of Americans still think this is important, to varying degrees. I'm sure you know the stereotype about people in Texas who think they need to have a huge armory to be able to defend themselves against the entire US military someday. But outside of these extremists, there is still a common political idea among general Americans that the ever-present threat of violence from common citizens who own and train themselves to use weapons acts as a powerful incentive protecting us from overreach by our government. In my opinion it is somewhat outdated, and also unfortunately makes us less inclined to engage with our democracy.
Washington is always written about as being humble. Might be true, but really he was frequently given power because he and his wife were never able to have kids. Some of the founders are more open about this being good as he couldn't start a new monarchy/dynasty.
Notes to take on royals in general back then: They were severely interbred, even the Tzar Nicholas was interbred with all of the other royals, some were not as deformed as the House of Habsburg. having a royal blood right to inherit thrones was the only thing they married for.
One thing rarely mentioned about this bit of history. One of the 'Intolerable Acts' was the Quebec Act. This act gave the newly conquered French in North America the power to hold public offices. They were allowed to continue using French common law. It allowed them to keep the land they possessed before the war. Without giving up their religion (Catholic) or language (French). This pissed off the English speaking Protestants of the colonies, many who were planning on getting rich by taking French land and selling it. Among these land jobbers was George Washington. So one of the things that triggered the American Revolution was that citizen's rights were granted to people the American people didn't want to have any rights.
The early settlers to America had guns because it was a wild and untamed land with dangerous animals and natives to "pacify". The settlers were pioneers. They had to be self sufficient given the distance from the greater kingdom of Britain. People needed to hunt, defend themselves from wildlife, police themselves, form militias, defend against native aggression, and be the aggressors against the natives. The very existence of the colonies was based off of being able to support yourself without the greater kingdom there to do it. People had to be self reliant and stand for themselves, being independent. So many became great shots and trackers. Living in the new world also ment they were able to function easier since they were familiar with it. Home field advantage. Plus the large organized musket formations of the british were powerful but unwieldy in the heavily forested areas. The standard training and military doctrine of war at the time wasn't suited to fighting a decentralized guerilla force.
