America's 2nd War of Independence | 5 Minute Videos
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- In this video, author Brian Kilmeade sheds light on the largely and unfortunately overlooked War of 1812. Kilmeade explains how this war got started, the daunting odds against a nation in its infancy, and the unlikely hero who secured America’s young nation’s future by pulling off one of the greatest upsets in military history.
Script:
The United States had to fight not one, but two wars for its independence. The first, of course, was the Revolutionary War.
Can you name the second?
It was the War of 1812.
Now, both wars were against the British. And in both cases, the Americans should have lost.
The Revolutionary War is very much celebrated in American history. The second one has all but been forgotten.
But had it been lost, America’s history would have been much, much different.
The British precipitated the war by failing to recognize the United States as a sovereign nation. For five years between 1807 and 1812, they repeatedly disrupted American commerce, boarding American merchant ships, capturing their sailors-over 5,000 of them-and forcing them to work on British ships.
Finally, President James Madison said, “Enough!” and on June 18, 1812, Congress declared war on Britain. The euphoria didn’t last long. And for good reason. The Americans had no viable strategy, no standing army to speak of, no generals worthy of the rank, a very small navy, a wholly inadequate supply of munitions.
It was a different story on the British side. They had all the men, ships, generals and admirals they needed-and then some. If these upstart Yankees wanted war, the British were only too happy to accommodate them.
Things went pretty much as expected: one American defeat after another, culminating in the burning of Washington, D.C.
The great prize of the war was not the tiny American capital, or even the larger, nearby city of Baltimore. The prize the British wanted was the gateway to the American West, the city at the mouth of the Mississippi River-New Orleans. If Britain controlled this key southern port, it could check American expansion, confining it to the eastern half of the continent for the foreseeable future.
To take New Orleans, the British amassed an enormous sea and land force-60 ships, 10,000 men.
And what could the Americans offer by way of defense? Enter Andrew Jackson, one of the most remarkable figures in American history.
See the rest: l.prageru.com/...
Follow PragerU on social media!
Instagram ➡️ ( / prageru )
Twitter ➡️ ( / prageru )
Facebook ➡️ ( / prageru )
2A the very reason for the citizenry to be armed.
"The Constitution was not written to restrain the citizen's behavior, it was written to restrain the government's behavior."
I would love to see more videos like this highlighting key battles in American wars! 👍
In high school my history teacher dismissed the war as a needless American mistake. He even said the Battle of New Orleans was unnecessary because it took place after a peace treaty had been signed. He completely overlooked the strategic implication of the British occupying New Orleans and controlling all trade along the Mississippi River and travel across it.
The Left has been trying to minimalize American efforts in every way.
Some teachers/professors do it without knowing it, but all too many perfectly understand what they're doing.
Did he say militia. As in a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state.........
Yes he did. There were more militiamen than regular army, in fact
You got it - and just as critical now as it was then to preserve the 2nd amendment.
@@kellyinfanger9192 One could argue the civil war was our 3rd one for independence, because it was also about the US Constitution being the Supreme Law of The Land. The rebel states were interfering with the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendments as well; I'd need to read the Constitution again for other specifics. They also interfered with 1960 POTUS election, refusing to put Abraham Lincoln on 10 state ballots
@@RobertStewart-i3m1860 was the year.
"In 1814, we took a little trip, along with Col. Jackson, to the mighty Mississip'. We took a little bacon and we took a little beans..."
And we fought the bloody British in the town of New Orleans...
Yeah they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch'em
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind …
LOL I had this song playing in my head through the entire video!
Good one- I got it going on my iTunes right now!!!!
He was a hard ass to be sure. Even for the time. But sometimes... that's exactly what you need.
Britain wasn’t ’too happy’ to fight the Americans. They were busy fighting some guy named Napoleon and couldn’t much afford a distraction hence why this war ended relatively quickly in a peace treaty.
Right. It's hilarious to me that our capital was razed, and we still look back on it as a victory because an overseas power didn't commit its full force to occupying our massive territory and basically said, "Yeah, whatever."
@@justinsims655well committing 10,000 soldiers then losing isn’t exactly whatever..
I was just about to say that. The first two years of the war, the British were still fighting Napoleon and had to let their Indian allies do most of the fighting. It wasn't until 1814 that most of the major events of the war took place.
The militia of Maryland - not the US Army - stopped cold the landward advance on Baltimore. As at the later Battle of New Orleans, the British commanding officer was killed by an American sharpshooter. Yes, the British burned Washington, however, they failed utterly to take either Baltimore or New Orleans. American arms also swept the British and their Indian allies from the Northwest Territory (culminating at the Battle of the Thames) and the British from Lake Erie.
The Brits hired young German men to be soldiers, promising to bring them home when it was successful.
Of course, the survivors were not sent home.
My husband has Hessian ancestors on his dad’s side & his mother was a WWII bride.
British forces' diet: tea and crumpets
U.S. forces' diet: raw squirrel meat and whiskey
THAT was the key to victory! LOL
Before the Battle of New Orleans, when some Kentucky volunteers said they needed guns, Jackson said - only half-jokingly - that he had never in his life seen a Kentuckian without a deck of cards, a jug of whisky, or a gun.
i feel fortunate i have prager u...thank you...
The British had 60 ships and 10,000 men
The Americans had Andrew Jackson
The British should have brought more men!
It is a shame that 1812 has been forgotten.
Canada remembers. Ask them who won that war. No matter how you look at it, the US did NOT win that war, and that's why so little US attention is given to it. The US does not like to talk about it's losses - Korea, Vietnam, War of 1812, just to name a few that are purposefully buried in dusty history books.
If you forget the history, you are bound to repeat it.
Amen and Roger That, Solid Copy, Brian Kilmeade. GOD Bless America on Independence Day 2024 AD. 🇺🇸🇺🇲🇺🇸🇺🇲🇺🇸🇺🇲🇺🇸🇺🇲🇺🇸🇺🇲🇺🇸🇺🇲🇺🇸🦅🗽📜⚖️🪖💣💥🔥🛡️🗡️⚔️
Actually independence was declared by the Second Continental Congress on July 2, 1776. It then took two days to discuss, edit, partially gut, and finally approve the written explanation for the July 2nd vote. Today this type of written explanation is called a "press release".
Thank you. When I was young & dumb with my head up my you-know-what, I wasn’t paying close attention in History class when covering this war. COVID woke me up! Very good! It’s probably not a coincidence the State of Louisiana is leading the charge currently in returning & restoring the 10 Commandments in public schools.
I knew this history. But this video definitely put it into perspective. Thanks Kilmeade.
Yhgho😅
As always Great informative educational videos👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍😊😊
I thought you were going to mention the cold civil war right now
NEVER.....Forget the Kings Mountain War in So. Carolina 1780.....And....the. Cowpens Battle.....1781....AGAIN Brit's Got Blown Out Of the Water.....!!!
I've walked those two battlefields many times over the past 25 years. The stories are always stirring.
If you haven't read the book 'Backcountry Fury' by Tony Zeiss, I recommend it. Based on a specific teenager who served in the war, it sheds a lot of new light on how Revolutionary War battles were fought.
I wish he had touched a bit deeper into the role Jean Lafitte played in the naval battle .. at that time no one knew the costal waters of the Gulf ,and the Mississippi sound better than he did. Using shallow draft sloops ,and schooners he would lure British ship into shallow waters causing them to run aground. Where they were sitting ducks for the fast ,and maneuverable “pirate” ships.
People have often criticized President Trump for his temper. Andrew Jackson had a violent temper and was one of our greatest generals and presidents.
Thanks, Brian, for presenting a well thought out and researched account of the War of 1812. The war is too often overlooked and misunderstood. Like you, I live in Jacksonville FL and hope that other American understand the difficult times and positions that Andrew Jackson faced and they will resist efforts to change the name of Jacksonville.
@williamrogers4290 - Andrew Jackson was rightly regarded as a national hero and still should be today by any informed American. I find it appalling that 'Cancel Culture' types - would-be revisionists of American history - would dare even to attempt to change the name of the city of Jacksonville.
@@shawngilliland243 Andrew Jackson’s military career was admirable, but he was the president responsible for relocating the five civilized tribes from the Southeastern states to Oklahoma.
That action was infamously know at The Trail of Tears.
All of the greatness that we have inherited and it is being stolen and diminish by ignorance in the guise of equity.
4:17
Most weapons would have been muskets not rifles. Even for the Americans who used more rifles than usual.
The myth of the American Long Rifle runs deep and wide. In truth, they were not that effective in turning the tide of battles - except in a couple: Saratoga and King's Mountain. In those two cases, it was the men using them that made the difference. Most rifle "companies" in the revolution were routed quite handily by veteran British regulars who understood the tactical hazards they were facing, and charged the re-loading riflement with the bayonet, scattering them almost every time. And, the British also had riflemen among the Loyalists.
@@Lollygagger-k4p Yet the British did not prevail in either conflict, because the Americans eventually rallied. Even as late as the Second World War, though American troops might 'break' sooner than those of European nations, they also rallied faster and returned to the fight faster than European troops who had broken.
@@shawngilliland243 There were several reasons the British gave up the colonies. American skill at arms was only one aspect, and it was very late in coming. It's almost as if the Americans didn't want to be shown incompetent or cowardly in front of Royal French Infantry.
The unpopularity of the war in England was a top reason, plus the in-fighting between British commanders in theater. Other reasons had to do with the high costs of logistics when England was at war globally with France, and with Spain threatening to enter on the side of France. The British problems were very complex, at a time when the crown was nearly broke from the Seven Years War.
If anything, American units retreated and did not rally as much as we would like to think, with desertions being the greatest problem Washington faced during the entire war.
WW2 presented an entirely different scenario for American troops. They were very well aware that they were not defending home territory, and had no interest in dying for someone else's, nor in acquiring land for Uncle Sam. American commanders were also aware of this , and normally were averse to committing troops into high risk engagements. There were several that fit that description, such as Huertegen and Anzio, Normandy, etc. But in general. American commanders used what they had to keep US casualties at a minimum: Air power and Artillery - both of which they had plenty of. In short, the American Army did not attack like the Soviets. They blasted the Germans and waited for th white flag. American civilian leaders were extremely sensitive to casualty reports.
In the Pacific, the Marines fought an entirely different war. There was no possiblity of retreat or evacuation. The Japanese fought like no other army on earth, and neither side gave quarter. The US Army in Asia was also fighting the same implacable enemy, and the Battle of Manila was called the Stalingrad of Asia, but at least the army rotated units, whereas the marines did not.
I doubt that an army soldier in the European Theater would have much in common with a marine. Such has been written about.
I remember when Brian got his radio show, a few years back and just about the first thing I heard him talk about was promoting war in Ukraine. I haven’t listened to him since.
Supporting Ukraine isn't promoting war in Ukraine. The only promoters of war in Ukraine are Russian.
THAT was great! I expect nothing less ftom Prager U! Thanks for concise and well delivered dose of knowledge. That's why I donate to you! Keep fighting the good fight!
I missed the part where they said the battle of New Orleans was fought after the peace treaty was signed. Communication was slow back then so the generals on either side hadn't yet been informed. While it was a spectacular battle that propelled Andrew Jackson towards the presidency, it didn't help end the war. Napoleon helped with that. Due to this missing piece, the left will just have more ammunition to attack Prager U. It could have easily been prevented by adding another 5-10 seconds.
Agreed
Okay, but a Britain that suffered few losses could easily decide to continue the fight at a later date. The battle of New Orleans would have disabused them of any such thoughts. It may not have ended this war, but it could well have ended the beginning of another one.
I love Brian Kilmeade. I have all his books.
Kilmeade, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!
Can’t stand him. He showed he is a big government speaking head when he back Kevin McCarthy.
Third one happening now.
Stonewall Jackson did have his drawbacks, to be sure, but he also hated the British and was dedicated to the high ideals of the US Constitution
Yeah, like separation of powers? Watch the Cherokee's win in the Supreme Court, then watch Jackson act like it never happened and off they went on a trail of tears. That's really following the Constitution.
How could he make not a single mention of the fact that the war was already over before the battle of New Orleans? The UK sued for peace because of the return of Napoleon.
I was thinking the same thing
If Pakenham had won at New Orleans, do you honestly believe the English would've simply handed it back over to the US? Truce or no truce, they'd have kept it. And today, Jackson Square would instead be known as Pakenham square.
Because that fact is irrelevant. If the British had successfully taken New Orleans, they would have controlled all trade along the Mississippi River and any migration across it, ending America's Manifest Destiny. Strategically, this would have placed them in a very strong negotiating position - treaty or no treaty.
@@Col_K The peace treaty was already made before the battle happened.
@@regularguy2807 Neither side engaged in the battle knew this, but it does not matter. The British forces were determined to seize New Orleans and control the entire Mississippi River. Had they succeeded in this mission and been been told of the treaty after the fact, do you think the British general would have ceded control back to the United States? No, he would have notified London of their new bargaining chip and recommended they use it to their full advantage, which I very strongly suspect the British government would have done.
PragerU should do a video on the Battle of Athens, TN (1946). The only successful armed rebellion since the American revolution.
There were a lot more rebellions then just Athens
I thought he was going to say, “is coming…”
The War of 1812 wasn't actually a "2nd American war of independence", because the British weren't really interested in trying to take back their old colonies. And this video also ignores the bigger context, such as the Napoleonic wars at the time. The reason the British were boarding American ships was because they were trying to blockade France from foreign trade, which was a response to Napoleon when he forbade any conquered or allied European countries from doing trade with Great Brittain. Ironically the War of 1812 didn't have to happen, as the British had just rescinded their policies of boarding foreign ships right before the U.S. Congress declared war on them, but unfourtunatly back then it took weeks for information to travel across the Atlantic.
Oh, and he also forgot to mention that the U.S. tried to invade British Canada during this war, but was successfully held back by Canadian militias.
The British were blocking American merchant ships from trading with France. They were also boarding American ships to impress (i.e. force) sailors from the American ships into the British navy.
*British militias.
Canada didn't exist at the time
@@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle Not as an independent country, but as a British colony/dominion.
Love this video. Andrew Jackson was an absolute Chad!
Yeah, that Trail of Tears was real Chad. So much of the power of winning in the supreme court. Thanks, Chad.
Maybe not a morally perfect Chad, but a Chad nonetheless
@@curriphacreator @curriphacreator If you put it like that then Darth Vader and every other non-fictional villain gets your stamp of approval.
@@TheRadioAteMyTV he wasn’t called “Old Hickory” for nothing. He served the US greatly.
And he didn’t direct the Trail of Tears. That was Martin Van Buren. Jackson actually adopted three Native American (specifically Creek) boys (he and his wife Rachel couldn’t have children), Lyncoya, Theodore, and Charlie. He raised and educated them and almost got Lyncoya into West Point before his tragic death from tuberculosis at 17.
Jackson respected Native Americans, and they him. He supported relocation, but not for racist reasons. He didn’t think they and the settlers could live peacefully together, and it would be easier to move the Natives than the settlers, since the latter were more numerous.
My point being, Jackson wasn’t a terrible, racist, genocidal tyrant. He was a great military leader. What I was trying to say is that although he was the opposite of perfect (he is actually bottom ten on my list of US presidents), he had guts and saved our country. And I respect him for that.
@@curriphacreator Not sure you can show where I called him a racist or anything about genocide either. Waving off Jackson's connection to the Trail of Tears is not working, and his actions towards those three clearly showed no sympathy for the group who took their case to the Supreme Court and won their case only to find themselves dropping dead on a long lonely painful march to oblivion anyway. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!". He did not make that statement, but when asked if he would disavow it he did not.
I learned about the War of 1812 from the Canadian perspective. The phenomenal British defeat at New Orleans wasn’t emphasized, nor the purpose of the attack. I’ve learned something new today.
The great trick history question, about a third of our class missed it, when was the War of 1812 fought? I took high school American History in 1978.
My ancestor Jessie Perce Harmon fought in the war of 1812 along with his brother Martin. Martin died in the war. Jessie survived and moved west and became a police officer.
I love hearing the British rationalizations for why they "failed to win".
WOW!! Thank you for the history lesson, PragerU!
And then we had the 3rd War of Independence beginning in 1860… sadly, the good guys lost that one.
Seriously calling slaveownerw the good guys?
@@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle didn’t you just celebrate Independence Day? All 13 colonies allowed for slavery. Great Britain offered TWO EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATIONS!!! I guess that war wasn’t about independence, it was about slavery.
I think you’re a bit mistaken. The slavers lost that war
but america did lose the war of 1812, what would be canada won. that's what us canadian are taught, we resisted usa conquest
When their cannons melted due to their excessive firing pace, they had to resort to using an alligator as a makeshift cannon.
Today I learned. Thank you Prager U and Brian Kilmeade.
Never underestimate irregular forces...
"FORGOT"? Did you pay attention in school? "Today I forgot", "Yesterday, I forgot" "Often I have for forgotTEN".
And you're a "journalist"?
I clearly heard, “…has all but been forgotten.”
Ask Canada who won that war.
Why would I do that? Canada didn't exist at the time. I suppose I could ask the British Empire.....
It was a draw, that’s how it’s pretty much always been viewed
The Civil War was also the south's attempt at independence from a growing tyrannical government. That being said, I totally hoped this video was about our NEXT war of independence from the tyrants now in control of our great country. Democrats and Republicans alike.
How tyrannical of them to think that slavery should not exist.
Hamilton was one of the worst presidents ever.
Winston Groome wrote an excellent book on the battle.
Corwin Amendment
where is Otto?
He died several months ago. There's a new dog in town now.
The formers of america would be outraged if they knew we support europe and have never upholded the monroe doctrine
The United States frequently upheld the Monroe Doctrine to prevent European powers from re-colonializing countries in the New World. Moreover, the French withdrew all of their armed forces from the "Empire" of Mexico, a puppet state they set up with the Austrian Maximilian I as 'Emperor', when the US sent a large army of veteran troops, well-armed and equipped, to the northern border of Mexico after we had settled our Civil War.
What does it mean "free men of colour"? Really, what does that mean? Why is Prager U using terms that have no hard meaning?
It’s a distinction……if he had just said “black men,” we might have presupposed these were slaves given the time period. The term helps us make sense of the people involved fighting the Britts.
@@TheSaintFrenzy The question was not answered, "What does it mean "free men of colour". I have heard many people use the term and no one has solidified what it means, and I can't be the only one who wonders what it actually means. I have heard it called on some people and then taken away from other people etc. Until people define it solidly, it needs to be dropped from speech because so far it means nothing.
@@TheRadioAteMyTV A free black person.
@@TheSaintFrenzy You are telling anyone who reads this, that every time they hear the term "person of colour" they are to imagine only "a free black person". Sorry, not buying it. The term has no solid meaning and thus should not be used.
@@TheSaintFrenzy RUclips blocked my reply, welcome to hell where free speech of any kind is dead.
2nd, 3 July 2024
OMg, first
This is one of the most misleading and biased videos PragerU has ever made!
If your atheism rests upon your ability to support your contentions with facts, yours will be a short crusade, indeed.
😂
War of 1812 was not a war of independence or revolutionary war. It was a war of aggression.
By the British, maybe.
Happy dependence United state of Israhell 🎉🎉 as recognised by biden 🎉🎉🎉
Buddy, we’re more subject to Britain than them. Actually, we’re defiling our ForeFathers memorials with our nonsensical alliance with the Primary Enemies of American Independence.
be honest with urself, the british would have annihillated usa if they werent also fighting THE greatest military leader of mordern times, NAPOLEAN, at the same time
And the enemy of my enemy is our friend.
@@Mansini77 ya, but also remember, if Napolean had won his continental war, his next dream was to take back Louisiana, that he had sell in 1803. Make no mistake, even Napolean wanted the sweet sweet western lands of Americas. It's truly a miracle America maintained it sovereignty while the Europeans powers were salvaneting at Africa in late 19th century.
Well, that's not what happened in 1775-1781, long before Napoleon. You can talk about what MIGHT have happened, or you can learn about what actually DID happen.
Salvaneting? @@stormstriker2000
😂 I guess they didn’t realize that during the Revolutionary War
I was born for a storm and calm does not suit me - Andrew Jackson. A quote that could apply to President Donald J. Trump, as well!
Of course calm doesn't suit him we saw that at the capitol.
Didn't the battle happen after the war was over?