12:11 Jefferson was one of the fiercest critics of slavery in the Congress. He inherited all his slaves, was legally prohibited from emancipating them, and was forced to omit a scathing indictment of slavery from the Declaration of Independence by the delegates from a mere two states.
not to mention, the wording in the constitution was done cleverly with the intent for future Emancipation efforts to be able to use the constitution as the basis of their legal argument. It should be common sense, especially today where great turmoil is erupting after endless moral crusades and activism, that truly good change takes time; decades even. The world wasnt ready for emancipation back then, same way it wasnt ready for womens rights or civil rights. it took time to change hearts and minds, but they wrote the founding document with the trust that better men in the future would be able to use it to achieve the dream they had for us
I remember reading that at the founding the US was just 3 votes away from ending slavery when the Constitution was ratified. As it turns out the 3/5 compromise in counting slaves for representation built in the mechanism for ending slavery within the next 100 years.
Thomas Jefferson tried several times when in the Virginia legislature to eliminate the institution of slavery and was denied. His first draft of the Declaration actually proposed including the elimination of slavery. He even got 11 of the 13 colonies to agree to it. The problem was that they had decided all 13 colonies would have to agree to every decision so two states prevented that from happening in the Declaration. History is not so black-and-white. It’s much more nuanced. And what we think of certain people is not necessarily so when looking through the prism of what is viewed as obvious now.
@@apopuffkin1717 Because it was illegal to just free them. He had inherited them and was not sure how to deal with it. Thus his attempts to change the laws.
@Neil oppa he also paid his slaves, not every slave owner was an asshole like today’s teachers will tell you. Pretty sure he had an affair with one of his slaves as well. What does owning slaves have anything to do with wanting to end slavery?
2:53 Because it is oversimplified, the whole reason for the colonies saying no to the "pay us back for protecting you" thing was obviously glossed over with a simple no. A slightly more nuanced version of it is that England went to war with France to take the land and it's natural resources, NOT to actually protect the colonies, though protecting the colonies was part of the deal because without them, they have no one to extract the resources and turn it into goods. After winning and England came looking for someone to pay the bill, they basically just figured since the war was all about things over there, the colonies should pay for it. This, of course, completely glosses over the fact that the colonies were poor as dirt and couldn't afford to pay it even if for some crazy reason they actually agreed to it. Now you might ask, if they had all of the natural resources and turning it into goods to sell, why were they poor? Funny thing about the British Empire was that none of the colonies (globally) were able to do business on the world market, they could only do business with members of their own colony, or with England, who would then turn around and sell things on the world market with a hefty mark up because it's a decent quality product made from exotic (at the time) materials from a far away place. If you were a carpenter in America and you made a really nice desk, you only had two customers. A fellow American colonist who didn't really have a whole lot, or England who wouldn't pay you much better for it. As a colonist, you couldn't sell it to someone in Germany (or even a different British colony like India) who would pay you a whole lot more for it. Instead, you had to sell it to someone in England, who then turned around and sold it to someone in Germany (or a different colony) for that whole lot more "world price", and England pocketed the extra money for basically doing nothing but deliberately forcing themselves into the position of middleman, as any true capitalist would. So England got rich by "taxing" it's colonies without actually levying a tax against them. This was annoying to most colonists, but at the same time, the benefit was the military protection from other global powers that they weren't directly paying for and for the most part the colonists being left alone to do their own thing, so it was kind of just allowed to happen without anyone on either side actually complaining about it. When King George then turned around and actually taxed the colonies with legitimate on the books taxes (the sugar act, the stamp act, etc.) to pay for the war (a war England caused fighting with France over land and then blaming the colonies for it) and telling the colonies to directly pay for the soldiers there that England without any input from the colonies decided how many soldiers and how much it costs for those soldiers, on top of already "taxing" the the colonies by not letting them sell goods on the world market, well, it kind of pissed everyone off as it broke the terms of the previous arrangement in such a way that only England was advantaged by it instead of both parties having favorable advantages that let them accept less favorable things the other side got. So the colonies said no to the on the books taxes and arguing that they want representation if England is going to start trying to control things, to which England said no, aaaaaaaaaaaand welcome to the beginning of the end of the British Empire.
Nicely written. Also fun fact, these experiences contributed to the construction of many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights; most plainly the third amendment
Jefferson was anti-slavery, but he has a lot of debt so he kept his slaves rather than risking one of his creditors taking them. He treated them like employees. The world was quite complex back then. Most of the American Founding Fathers weren't big fans of slavery from what I've read.
Excellent post. Jefferson even wrote powerful language in a late draft of the Declaration that castigated the King for profiteering from slavery and instituting it upon the colonies. Of the 13 states, all but two were willing to accept that language and banish slavery from the inception of the country. However, it was universally agreed that all thirteen had to give approval to each element of the document, or any hope of a unified front against the King was hopeless. Thus, the anti-slavery platform was sacrificed for the short term, while language that did not distinguish race was agreed to, in the knowledge that the end of slavery would come in time. This is why some see confusion in the language versus the tragic reality of slavery. Yet there was not a country in the world that had even questioned the immorality of slavery until that time. America was the first, and several of the 13 states soon became the first governments in the world to ban the practice.
Employees can leave. Employees have legal rights and aren’t listed in the census alongside livestock like cows and pigs. If a boss wants to impregnate an employee, an employee has the legal right to say no thank you. He might have written in opposition to slavery as a thought exercise but he did not practice what he preached. Let’s stop re-writing history and romanticizing a flawed man as some uniquely benevolent slave owner. It’s honestly gross and offensive.
@@missliss2581able Who is rewriting history here? It was not just a thought exercise. I'd bet Thomas Jefferson did far more than you've done in your life to help people become free and equal before the law-- including his attempts to abolish slavery at the inception of the nation. You can get off your offended high horse whenever you want and try to understand the actual history and disposition of these people instead of parroting internet talking points for keyboard warrior brownie points.
This is only partially true. He did have slaves, and treated them well, but by law he could not free them until his death, if he was debt free. THis was the law in Virginia, and was different in other colonies. He and Patrick Henry were run out of the state house because they introduced a law that would allow anyone to free their slaves at any time. But kudos for knowing that he was anti-slavery.
Diane, Did you know that the majority of the Continental Amy and Minutemen were made up of men of Irish or Scotch-Irish decent rather than British or any other nationality. The largest and most decorated Pennsylvanian unit was more than 90% Irish and were referred to as "The Irish Line" by George Washington.
The Irish in America then were overwhelmingly Protestant. During the 1840's they shifted over to many Catholics. That was because of the Potato Famine. The very numerous American Scotch Irish of today descend from those Irish Protestants. American Country music is Celtic music.
The Scotch-Irish were British themselves dumbasss, and no they did not made up the majority of the continental army, they definitely were overrepresented but they were not the majority.
A couple historical errors here: - The ship of the Boston Tea Party was NOT a British ship, it was an American ship transporting tea for the East India Trading Company. In fact many of the founders including Washington were furious at the lack of respect for private property. - Paul Revere did NOT say "The British are coming". That wouldn't have made sense... the colonists all considered themselves British. What he said was, "The Regulars are coming". "The regulars" being a reference to the regulated British militia. (side note, that's what "well-regulated" refers to in the 2nd Amendment... not government regulation over the weapons, but an organized militia of citizens) - It's misleading to imply that George Washington wanted to be the military leader. In fact most of his profession life was spent REFUSING service and having to be dragged into it. He really wanted to spend time at Mount Vernon with his wife. But he was such a popular figure that he routinely got called into action almost against his will entirely. He did everything he could to avoid going to the Continental Congress... in fact he outright denied the invite for months. - In regards to Jefferson, the initial draft of the Declaration of Independence included a condemnation of slavery, which the founders felt was unjustly inflicted upon them by King George. It was unfortunately removed because they didn't think they could gain the support of the southern colonies. But the founders were well aware of the sin of slavery, they simply couldn't conceive of a way to end it without fracture and bloodshed. Perhaps to their shame. But they were not unaware of the hypocrisy.
I'm proud of you for learning more about history, Miss Diane. You always want to know more about cultures, and it is impossible to understand the world without knowing history. Keep up the good work. I hope you have a great weekend.
@@DianeJennings I also wanted to say thank you for giving me a heart. God bless you and all of your loved ones have a beautiful journey in life my friend.
"December 23, 1776 THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." -Tom Paine I wish this wasn't quite so evergreen
10:15 😂😂😂😂 As for the slavery...if you owned slaves, you couldn't just abandon the people. You essentially took care of them. So Jefferson did in fact inherit the slaves, and he disagreed with the practice of slavery. But don't take my word for it, do your research :)
@@DianeJennings also the Boston Tea party had global effects. The East India Trading Company that was responsible for shipping Tea to the American colonies. Was ruling India my ansctors country the company ruled Bhair region where my ansctors where from. Along with Bengal Subah region now modern Bengal Bangladesh Odisha and the modern Indian state of Bengal. After the Battle of Buxar on October 22 1764 when the East India Company was given the right to collect taxes or Diwani or Laggen. They raised the Tax and stopped the saving of grain in case of Famine which was a common practice in India. When the Bengal Famine which happened in the year 1769 to the year 1770 hit it killed approximately 1 3rd of the Bengal population. The company still demand the taxes demanded the Taxes to be collected regardless of the peasantry dying on the street. This was the 1st of many Famines which happened during Brtish Colonial rule of India. As a Irish person Diane I'm sure you know this was the Brtish Empires policy in Ireland during the Irish Patoato Famine a century later this led to the Tea Act to be passed and it made the price of tea the American colonies where getting cheaper. At a monopoly from the East India Trading Company. The American colonies got cheap tea. And the company got a bailout because the Bengal Famine left them in bad shape and loss of revenue. But American Revolutionaries such as John Dickinson and others knew of the Bengal Famine in India and feared if the East India Trading Company got its tea monopoly in America. Than the company could rule all of America like they did India. And they will be no better than the people of Bengal. So this fear is one of the things that contributed to the Boston Tea party in 1773.
If I remember correctly, Jefferson's original draft did include slaves to be freed, but there was heavy debate and resistance about it, with too much worry that attacking such a monolithic institution would likely weaken and fracture the new country. I think he had a quote that referred to this unfortunate circumstance, "I tremble for my country when I realize that God is just, and that his justice cannot sleep forever." He was basically saying slavery would be an issue that would come back to haunt to America, and it did, with not the least of which being the civil war. George Washington's sentiments were much the same, in his notes he basically calls it a sin against God. These guys were pretty smart, and the hypocrisy of promising a free nation to the people whilst slavery was still allowed was not lost on them.
Dude slept and had children with his wife's half sister, Sally Hemmings, who was a product of his father-in-law's raping one of his slaves. He did this after saying that Africans are sub-human and whites should not mix with them because it will weaken the bloodline. He also died in debt meaning all of his slaves he "promised" to free were sold off to cover the cost of his debt, meaning even his own children were sold off and the Hemmings family was split apart. It had nothing to do with taking care of people. Who are you, Uncle Rukus from The Boondocks? And yes this is factual history, I've been to Monticello and studied the 2nd greatest hypocrite in US history in depth just so I can have plenty of ammo to use against apologists and slave owner sympathizers.
I'm a descendant of Nathaniel Fanning who was a midshipman on the Bonhomme Richard.His actions at the battle of Flameborough Head resulted in a victory for the Continentals. He eventually captained other ships as a privateer raiding British shipping. His fearlessness and bravery made him a legend in the US navy. Three US Navy ships have been named after him. 33 members of the family fought in the war at all military ranks. His father Gilbert was one of the main suppliers of the Continental Army.
Of course, they left out the part where Jefferson included slavery's introduction to the American colonies as a grievance against the crown in his earliest drafts of the Declaration. True, he was forced to remove it in later drafts or risk losing the southern colonies, but that's, you know, an inconvenience to modern narratives of oversimplified history rather than presenting people in the full context of their time and personal actions.
Exactly. All I hear is the founders were liars or hypocrites when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But looking at the phrases they borrowed and created, and the ideas that they wrote in the documents and in their own personal journals and books, tell that they very much meant what they said. It was a matter of time before America had a fight about slavery, but the time was not at the founding. Also, jefferson did own slaves, but couldn't legally free them, hence attempting to change laws. I believe he also paid them.
@@kawaii33366 They oversimplified it to the point of purposefully leaving out key information, which I consider deceptive for audiences who don't do their own research.
Oyster shells hurt a lot when they hit you, especially if they have a jagged edge. Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" isn't technically a book because of its length. You really should react to Part 2. :)
12:13 Yeah, Jefferson tried to outlaw slavery. He recognized that the only reason he was even in a position to write such documents was because of slavery, and he thought it was BS. He literally tried to outlaw his own wealth. It was Benjamin Franklin, a non-slave owner, that made him take it out stating, "this is a fight for another day."
@@occamsrazor1285 oh yeah, you missed almost 250 years worth of American history! There was a little thing called the “Civil War,” not sure you’ve heard of it
@@hihellohi5714 OK, let's say you're right and I've never heard of the Civil War. How does my never hearing of it make what I said in anyway false? Or was that not your point? Do you even have a point? Did you just want to voice your displeasure with my comment and had to really overreach to hobble together something that at least sounded like a coherent argument?
In doing my family genealogy, I discovered that my 6th great grandfather fought for independence at several well-known early battles as well as endured the winter of 1777-78 at Valley Forge. After the war, he married the daughter of a Loyalist who had to be thrown into the hold of a prison ship for three weeks before finally signing an oath of allegiance to the States and shutting up about his loyalty to Britain. He stayed in New York after the war instead of leaving for Canada or England, so he apparently adjusted his attitude or simply resigned to keep quiet.
My family actually fought in this war. One of my family members was actually part of the “Lexington Alarm”, you might have heard of it as “The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere”(there was up to 50 riders). And my other ancestor camped with George Washington at Valley Forge.
Diane watches and reacts to an Oversimplified view Of the Revolutionary War that America went through She learned a few things beyond what she already knew But it ended on a cliff-hanger, so we need part 2!
Fun fact, Spain plundered so much gold from Central and South America it actually lead to hyperinflation in their local economy and some people believe it was contributing factor to the collapse of the Spanish Empire. On another note, I can not wait to see you respond to part 2
As if you did not already know, Monday would be a great day for part 2 of this. 😁 Another wonderful video Diane. I have always thought history was a fun topic.
Yes, please do part 2! You bring a lovely new perspective and add a bit of fun to my day! Thank you for this, as I am mostly housebound, and need some light-hearted videos to watch.
Hey Di, two things that really grind my gears. Excessive taxes and death. The latter being the only way to escape the former. Thank you for the fun clip. I rather enjoyed it. Gotta go my country is having a birthday today. 🎂 🇨🇦 Have a great weekend. 😃 P. S. Please do part two.
I don't know how taxes work in Canada, but in America, death isn't an escape from taxes, it is an occasion for the government to levy the death tax (officially known as the "inheritance tax"). Irony of ironies: the tax burden that we rebelled over would be preferable to the tax burden of modern day America. But hopefully we can eventually fix that without another revolution, since this time we do have representation.
They also failed to mention about the proclamation line of 1763. This basically meant that all the land west of the Appalachians was off limits for British settlers. This pissed off the colonists big time since they couldn’t access the land that they fought for not even a few months ago.
You've got to remember that back then one Pound Sterling literally represented a pound of silver. So imagine that the colonists in Boston destroyed £10,000 pounds of silver when they tossed all that tea into the harbor Right now one pound of silver is worth about $285 so the current value of that tea would be $285,000. But it would have been more valuable back then.
not to nitpick, (so here I go, nitpicking) but you missed a zero. It should be $2.85 Million. Which seems like what I paid for gas and groceries last week...
12:25 Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration actually railed against Britain for causing and encouraging slavery in America, but that part was removed because everyone else thought it was too controversial.
Often overlooked in US History quick bits, but slavery was in fact a point of contention at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence. The society of the time was in partial support of the vile world practice and the Founding Fathers purposely wrote the declaration to pave the way for the eventual abolishment of slavery. There are numerous texts from founders that spoke against the practice and the original drafts of the declaration did in fact include statements denouncing slavery; where Thomas Jefferson wrote that King George "waged cruel War against Nature itself, violating its most sacred Rights of Life and Liberty in the Persons of a distant People who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into Slavery in another Hemisphere, or to incur miserable Death, in their Transportation thither." Unfortunately, the world and western societies hadn't reached the consensus of slavery being evil yet. So, the founders settled on leaving the practice of slavery unprotected and unacknowledged in the declaration so it could be dealt with at a later point when the colonies weren't dealing with a war with England. Slavery was a conscious political omission from the Declaration of Independence so that the colonies would remain united in their fight against England.
Also Jefferson and the other members feared that the some of the southern states would reject that denounciation and the founders wanted apporval of everything in the Delaration to be unaimous cause they knew England would use anything it could to divide the states from each other during the war.
Thank you for filling people in, on "the rest of if story." It's a mix of "sad," "frustrating," "disappointing," and "infuriating," that this part of U.S. history gets swept under the rug, in the midst circulated and studied history books, in our public school system. The simple truth is, no nation, in world history, abolished slavery in stock a short time, as the United States. (Less than a century of its existence.) It truly urks me when people throw the tired argument, about the "three fifths clause," against the wall, to see if it sticks...without acknowledging who did, and who didn't want it in the constitution, and 2. How it helped this nation abolish slavery. So, again, thank you for bringing up such a monumentally important point.
@@Dano_in_Texas People throwing the 3/5 clause in don't understand how insidious a trap it really was... for the SLAVERY holders! The slave holders wanted all their slaves to be counted as "citizens" without having any rights - that way, more population = more votes in Congress. Meanwhile some anti-slavers were wanting to figure out a way to free them, so wanted to not count slaves at all, because they wouldn't be able to count towards votes - but the majority of anti-slavers realized how that dehumanized slavery even more - so they came up with the idea that they count as part, but with allowing freed slaves to count as full citizens, the more slaves freed, the more population, thus the more powerful the free states became. A nice trap to break people who can't think logically. And it still shows as such to this day.
Sooo about the "all men are created equal" thing. There's actually a very thorough history of setting up the ending of slavery here from the very foundation of our country. The founders (not defending them, simply explaining their thoughts, right or wrong) believed that if they banned slavery from the start, there wouldn't be enough cohesion to keep the union together. There wouldn't be a country, essentially. So they took several measures to ensure that slavery would end once the country was established. Did many see slaves as less than human? Of course, sadly, horrifically. Did all of them, including the founders? No. This was a very big issue to them and not one they glossed over. Again, not saying they made the right choices, just saying that if anyone finds that line contradictory (and it is, but it's not the whole story), they should look into the things done at that time that showed the founders' intentions.
So, I am an American, my ancestor fought in the Revolutionary War. When it comes to the Founding Father's owning slaves and the "hypocrisy" of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, there is a couple of points that needs to be mentioned. First, a lot of the Founders we're against slavery. In fact, given religion was a staple of this country, they argued that Christianity is antithetical to slavery. But, point 2 is where things get sticky. Secondly, what I am about to say will sound horrible because it is horrible, but it's just cold hard facts. At that time in history, slavery was viewed the same as owning horses. And a lot of slave owners, and white people in general, did not view blacks and natives as people, or even human. Slavery was absolutely critically to the development of the economy from colonial America to early USA. But here is the problem - people today want to judge people's actions 200 years ago based on the morality and education of today. That is not fair to those people. I use this loose analogy: If 200 years from today it is learned by science and comes to be common knowledge that dogs and cats aren't only intelligent beings, but they have rights too, and the people 200 years from now believe that owning dogs and cats is immoral, disgusting, and violates their natural rights given to them by God and they pass laws saying it is illegal to own a dog or cat, does that mean that those of us that own dogs and cats today are evil people who are owning them to perpetuate some speciest ideology? Owning people is obviously disgusting and immoral, but at that time, slaves were not viewed/believed to be people. They were viewed as tools that were used to increase wealth and generate economic growth.... Kinda how farmers use horses/mules to pull plows to prepare the fields for planting, slaves were used to harvest the fields. So, the Founders were not evil because they owned slaves. They were geniuses because they created a country that had in it's founding documents, the tools/mechanisms necessary to eventually eradicate slavery. Unfortunately, because abolition of slavery was such a minority view (no matter whether you believed slaves were people), most of the states had laws that protected the institution of slavery, which is why the Founders couldn't "just set them free". It is extremely unfair to judge historical figures/cultures based on today's morality/knowledge on any topic. You are talking about a time period where you were lucky if your community had 10-15% of its citizens that could read/write. They were largely just trying to survive and that didn't allow a lot of time to reflect on "social justice". Luckily, USA Citizens live in a country where everyone has the same start and has control over how their life will play out (minus disease or natural disasters). We have freedoms that a lot of people even today, can't imagine.
The actual story of the Battle of Lexington and Concord was atually a slow motion hell-march for the Redcoats. Sad for th individual Tommy, but not a lick of remorse for the Holy Crown (1776-1916)
One additional comment-- The large proportion of Celts in the formation of this country is incredible. I have looked at some Celtic history and it is amazing at how well England managed to divide and conquer the Celtic countries. I believe their tactics led to the Celts creating a new country free of royalty, going back to the simpler Clan and Sept structure, applying it to a governmental model. And Yes! Please do a part 2.
Some things that aren't mentioned properly here: Thomas Jefferson initially wrote the Declaration with a paragraph including persons from Africa. But they took it out in fear of not getting support from all the colonists. Other facts about slavery in America they don't mention here..although they are quick to try making Jefferson look stupid. Although the hostilities technically ended in 1781, the treaty wasn't signed until 1783...finally recognizing the United States as a country. They didn't even have a government yet. It wasn't until the Constitutional Convention of 1787, that the current form of US government was established. And it would be two more years before the George Washington's term as the 1st US President began. They like to point out that Jefferson and Washington had slaves but, they don't mention the whole story and they leave some VERY VITAL information out because it destroys the ANTI-AMERICA narrative they want to push. But... To begin with, Washington DID have slaves. He is also on the record in 1783 suggesting the Emancipation of Slavery...that's right, the first US President suggested it..it wasn't an original thought of Abraham Lincoln's. George Washington is also on record in 1786, suggesting the new US government find a way to end slavery because he hated the concept. Did he continue to buy slaves? Yes, but there's a reason why if you ever read his diary and his ledgers kept at his museum. He hated seeing slave families tore apart. So, he would buy entire families to keep them together. However, even though he didn't provide them with standard housing, he did other things that a "racist" would NOT have done as a slave owner. He gave them a place to live, gave them land to grow their own crops to eat and to sell at the local market (for their own financial gain) and he even gave the "slaves" guns so they could hunt for meat for their families...and sell the pelts on the market to make money for themselves. What kind of slave owner would give weapons to the people he's trying to oppress? Now, people think the US government allowed and endorsed slave trading until the end of the Civil War. Absolute bs. The US actually passed a law outlawing Slave Trade in 1801...only twelve years after the 1st US President took office. Now, why did it take twelve years? Well, they had a country to build, establish trade, establish laws, etc. Let us NOT forget they had everyone chipping away at them trying to prevent them from actually succeeding in becoming a nation. They had little frontier wars with many different native American tribes, they had the British still wanting their colonies back, and they had the Quasi War (war with France) from 1798 to 1800. So, it took twelve years before they outlawed slave trading. Now, I know what a lot of people think, why did it continue if it took so long. Well, how well did Prohibition stop alcohol? How well has the US war on drugs done at stopping drugs in America? There are laws against running stop signs, robbing banks, murder...yet these things happen EVERY day. So, just because they passed a law, it didn't automatically stop it. Even though it was slavery and not alcohol, there's those Al Capones in every market. However, the US did deem slave trading an act of Piracy and in 1820, they began sailing the coast of Africa and the Atlantic Ocean, trying to stop slave ships. The problem here is most people think that should have stopped it. But the US Navy wasn't what it is today, they didn't have a lot of ships, they didn't have satellites, they didn't have radar, they didn't have helicopters or airplanes to help them hunt ships...and they were old wooden sail ships. Do you have any idea how long it would take an old sailing ship to patrol the coast of Africa? They were bound to miss ships. But the US Navy actually patrolled the waters, stopping and freeing several slave ships from 1820 until 1862. Oh, and let's circle back to Jefferson. What a lot of people forget, because they don't want to teach it....at the same time the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was taking African Slaves from Africa...there was another HUGE slave trade going on. It was called the Barbary Slave Trade. For roughly 400 years, African navies were raiding coastal European towns all the way up to Iceland and taking white Christians back to Africa to be sold into slavery. When the US won its independence, many of the US merchant ships were seized by these African navies and the Americans on board were sent back to Africa to be sold into slavery. George Washington and John Adams knew we did NOT have an army to go overseas and fight a war. So, they would spend up to 1/3 of our nation's tax revues to buy Americans back from slavery in Africa. Thomas Jefferson ended this. He sent a small fleet of US warships, nine US Marines and 500 Greek mercenaries to go to war against these African nations. It's known in America as The First Barbary War...from 1801 to 1805. It's not taught, but the history is in our daily lives if we knew what we were looking for. The US Marine Corps hymn mentions it in the famous line "From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli". The Marines are proud that their small force overwhelmed and defeated an army of five Northern African nations. Ever hear of Decatur Illinois? Decatur was a war hero from that war. In actuality, the US as a nation, was not pro slavery. The 1st President opposed it. The third President sent the Marines to Africa to end it. And the US sent troops to Africa three times to end slave trading...the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805, the Second Barbary War in 1815 and again to defend the former US slaves who went back to Africa. Oh, you've never heard of that. Look up the country of Liberia, established in 1847. It's in Africa, it has the same flag, the same laws and the same government as the US. Why? It was established by American citizens as a place where freed slaves and their descendants could go to if they wished to leave America and go back to Africa. Eventually, the US Government helped fund it for a while. And when the other African nations started entering Liberia and stealing its citizens to sell into slavery, the US sent troops to protect the Liberia people. There's so much that is taught about history that makes the US look bad, but if the left wing would teach the whole story, there'd be a lot less hate in today's world.
Very interesting, learned a few things. Only thing is I'm sure they didn't take abolishing out of the Declaration of Independence out of fear, they voted on it and 2 states out of the 13 voted against it and it had to be unanimous.
Jesus Christ you are absolutely delusional if you earnestly believe leftist education policies create hate. Being accountable for the past is the whole entire reason history exists. You are missing the point of your own passion in the full, gloriously oblivious irony that baby boomers have become famous for, right behind being incompetent. What kind of freak hangs onto their creepy, coded, and modified version of history instead of just shutting the fuck up and accepting that the internet exists now and things change daily and you need to vote for TOMORROW not yesterday
Oh yeah, they have tought about the Barbary Wars since the 1990s. Kids nowadays learn calculus in 7th grade genius, they can history the shit out of you, I guarantee all the history you want so badly to know has all been thrown in the 1980s garbage you crawled out of and replaced with better information, because that is precisely how living into the future works when you are originally from the past. You get to certain age, realize everyone lives in an illusion customized to their own prejudice, then you admit you've been clueless all along, admit you hurt the world for generations and caused untold harm to society, shut up, and start playing the game properly by the rules, where everyone works to make a free society barely function
@@maaingan I teach at the college level... kids today can't even do 9+5 in their head without grabbing the calculator app on their phone... let alone understand the nuances of trigonometry or calculus... PLUS - no, they are definitely not taught about the nuance of how slave owners could also be against slavery - how the laws on the books prevented them from freeing those assets, just like you can't legally burn down your own house or car if you owe against it... and those really are just "things" not sentient beings... The failure of our educational system is on display every day. EDIT : for the TL:dr set - the "better information" is set out there by people who willingly are trying to undermine the good America did to end slavery. It isn't "better", it's lies by omission.
I was right there with you until you decided to declare that people not knowing these things is due to the left wing not wanting it taught. You do know Texas controls textbook publication, right? That famously left-wing state? And, there's not a thing in your comment that I didn't already know. Most of which I learned, in the 80s, in Virginia. You're able to recognize nuance in history but not able to recognize nuance in modern education or political opinion?
I live just an hour and a half south of Fort Ticonderoga, and a half hour south of Saratoga. The entire area around me is full of amazing American history, especially relating to the Revolutionary War. My home town is on the Mohawk River and it’s said that George Washington came through the area to cross the river.
@@DianeJennings lord Charles Cornwallis after losing at Yorktown to Geroge Washington at Yorktown Virginia in the American Revolution was later transferred to another famous British colony India where he was made comander and chief of Brtish India. Or Governor General of India. In February 1786. Cornwallis passed a series of administrative reform to help the East India Trading Company rule India better. By reducing nepotism and political favoritism instituted merit based for the East India Trading Company officials got rid of child slavery opened a Hindu College. Won the 3rd Anglo Mysore war defeating Tipu Sultan and bringing 1 half of the Mysore Kingdom under East India Company rule. Cornwallis helped passed the Cornwallis Codes a series of acts that layed the Foundation of Brtish rule in India by introducing institutional rascism in the legal system. And making sure Indians could not go on to higher positions as cvil servants on the people of India. In June 1798 Cornwallis went to another Famous British colony your home country of Ireland. Cornwallis became Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and comander and chief of Ireland putting down the 1798 Irish Rebellion. Supported the Act of union of 1801. So losing in America didn't effect his popularity or standing in the Brtish Empire. He made up for his defeat in India and Ireland as governor General.
@@DianeJennings Just wanted to correct you in 3:15. The colonies might have been large in size but they only had 2.5 million colonists compared to 8 million people in Great Britain.
You do some pretty darn good editing yourself. I enjoy your work! If if you do part 1, you should probably do part 2. July 4th is Independence Day for USA
Great video Diane! Loved the impromptu laugh! I don't think I've seen you laugh that hard before. Considering how long the Bible has been around, it most likely is the best selling book in the world. It's also the most banned book. PS - I use an ad blocker on my desktop, works great. 😉 I don't block ads on your videos though. Lol.
@@DianeJennings Hi Diane. Yes please do react to Part 2. Hello from North Carolina, one of the original 13 Colonies. Give Sir Chewbert of Chewington a belly rub from me. Happy Fourth of July!
There's quite alot of history not taught here in the US about many of the wars of history, usually only the parts that make America look rightful in their actions. I enjoy learning all sides and parts of history because the more you know the better for the future. Also cool video, I learned some new stuff too.
For more details on TJ & the Declaration of Independance, the musical "1776" which came out on the bicentennial in 1976 is a great retelling of the conflicts & compromises.
12:19 It wasn't that simple. Slavery was a common practice and you'll understand later in the drafting of the Constitution and bill of rights, why slavery remained and Jefferson had them. Simple fact was, he couldn't free that at the time, without harsh repercussions. If they didn't make that compromise with the Southern states, America would have crumbled and the British Empire would have taken control back during the infancy stage of America.
When you watch part 2 you'll see why Americans treat George Washington as an almost-holy figure. Without him we wouldn't have won our independence, and his actions set such a strong example that we still hold some of his beliefs as important parts of our national culture. He is literally known as the "father of our nation"
@@jpw6893 Obviously George Washington neither single-handedly defeated the British, nor established every norm of the U.S. body politic, but saying that doesn't take away from the well deserved respect he gets for his monumental role in both.
I teach U.S. and Global History at the university level to freshmen and sophomores. This video is very fun and accurate, I enjoy watching reactions. American students come into universities with a broad background. U.S. schools vary in what they are teaching and students vary in interest. I am sure this is the same in Europe.
Good evening Diane, I hope you and Chewie are doing well. Yes, I really like Oversimplified. One of my degrees is in Western history and he gets most of the important aspects of any historical event pretty accurately and in an entertaining way. Definitely do part two. Give Chewie a kiss for me, and Chewie, give Diane a kiss from me. Love you, and goodbye for now! x
One of the other facts that was simplified out of this lesson; the first person killed in the Boston massacre was a sailor by the name of Crispus Attucks. A Black American patriot.
Great show. This is how they should teach History in school. Jefferson had slaves, but he did not buy them, it was an inheritance. As the years went by he freed them, gave them education and some stayed on as free people. Even Washington has slaves, but again inherited. Your reactions are great.
To be fair to the British side, Ben Franklin, our representative going back and forth, kept telling them "nah, the Colonists are fine, don't worry about it!" while living it up playboy style, and back in the Americas you had rich landowners and big business merchants whipping up common folk who were largely unaffected into a frenzy. Meanwhile the French, who are one of the main reasons the Colonists got their independence have continually had their role downplayed in a lot of lessons. Especially ever since WWII, with French military having become synonymous with cowards, in pop culture.
Don't forget about the Prussians. Almost no one remembers that Prussia was the first country to support us. Our army was trained by Prussian soldiers. France wouldn't have agreed to join if Prussia hadn't first joined. Most people think Germany fought against us because of the hessian mercenaries fighting for the British. There was no Germany at that time. The largest part of Germany was Prussia. The king of Prussia, Frederic the great hated George III of England.
Even though I've seen this video before these portrayals of history is so fun and entertaining I can watch it again and again. Definitely react to the next part.
yes, please react to the second part. Also, I do have RUclips Premium, although I don't like having it, but I spent way too many decades having commercial breaks shoved down my throat to want to watch all those ads. They keep sneaking more and more ads into the videos themselves, delivered by the video creators. They hit you going and coming, no matter what you do. Love your videos, by the way.
There were both Free Black Americans and slaves who were freed if they would fight for America's independence during the war. Peter Samuel, a freed slave, was called the Hero of Bunker Hill by his commanding officer. The same officer painted a portrait of the battle showing Peter behind him. Some might think the portrait shows Peter in fear, cowering behind his CO, but if you look closely, you can see that he had just been shot in the midsection, and his CO stood in front of him to keep him from being wounded again. Then there's James Armistead, a freed slave who served under General Lafayette. With his superior's permission, he went to the British, feigning himself an escaped slave who had been brutalized by his masters. The British believed him and promised to treat him better if he would spy on the Americans and pass on their plans. So... James passed bad intel off to the British while informing the Americans of British plans and, most famously, convinced General Cornwallis that there were no American forces in Yorktown, leading to America's greatest victory and the end of the war. Years later, when he knew he was dying, General Lafayette came to America one last time, he saw a familiar face in Charleston. James Armistead. These two old warriors embraced in one last "foxhole buddy" moment, a French marquis... And his free American friend.
8:00 Its an important thing to note that Paul Revere and the rest of the messengers didn't say "The British are Coming!" as that would make little sense considering the majority of colonists considered themselves British citizens. In reality, they said "The redcoats/regulars are coming!".
Just found your channel with RUclips recommending this video. It was very entertaining. I am now a new subscriber. I look forward to seeing more videos. Thank you.
12:16 FYI Jeferson's draft of the constitution did include freeing the slaves, but the south would not sign if it stayed in. Ben Franklin "we are only men trying to start a nation the issue must be left to better men than us"
Jefferson included an entire section against the slave trade and institution that the British Empire was fine with prior to the American Revolution. It was removed from the Declaration for fear the Southerners would withdrawal from the War of Independence.
Oyster shells are sharp as hell when they dry out and you sharpen them to scrape hides. To the best of our knowledge through research, Paul Revere couldn't ride horses at all. Most of the night ride screaming was a 15 year old girl. Far funnier was in 1812 when the British were chased out of Washington by a tornado.
"Hypocritical or not, Jefferson’s public stance on the slave trade in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence was quite clear. “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him,” Jefferson wrote of King George III. “Captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisp[h]ere.” When the document was sent to Congress for its approval, the representative from South Carolina took issue with its anti-slavery sentiment. After it had been edited by Congress, the resulting document was still one that would send echoes of freedom throughout the colonies. But it didn’t mean the same for all the new country’s inhabitants as the original draft would have. The result was the strange juxtaposition of slavery amid calls for freedom."
Minor discrepancy in the Oversimplified video. The skirmish in Lexington is NOT where “the shot heard around the world” was fired. It was in Concord where the first shots were fired. Specifically at a location known as the Old North Bridge
@8:00: i learned in school that Paul Revere began the ride with one of his slaves to warn "The Regulars are coming" but stopped on the first town because he was tired. His slave rode on to warn the others and Revere got credit because he owned the person. The word Regulars was used because the colonists, too, were British.
There originally was a section in the Declaration of Independence that opposed slavery, but it wasn't included because the authors (yes, more than just Jefferson) feared it would lose support from the states.
I just stumbled across your channel. The bit: Someone fired first... "Was it Han Solo?" - okay, love this humor already. Subbed right there. And yes, please react to part 2!
3:30 the harshest bit on the sugar act, both the brits and the american colonies were getting sugar from the Caribbeans. The sugar act made it mandatory to buy sugar from england (so shipped from Caribbeans to England refined and sold to america at a higher prices than America could easily get just to their south)
My mother attended school in Romford, Essex from about '26 to '38. She married a Yankee airman in '44. She told me whilst I was attending an American school and learning about the American rebellion for the first time (grade five) that the whole story of Yankee independence was glossed over and mostly ignored in her school curriculum.
My 4th great grandfather Caleb was part of Colonel Arnold's Expedition to Quebec. He got smallpox, and was court-martialed after his enlistment expired at the end of 1775, but he finally got a pass to leave at the beginning of May 1776. It took him a month to walk home up the St. Lawrence, the Richelieu, Lake Champlain, and across Vermont and Massachusetts to Newburyport. Another 4th great grandfather, Dr. Azor Betts, a doctor in New York, was arrested and imprisoned twice in 1776 by the New York Committee of Safety - once for calling Congress "a bunch of damned rascals" and again later for inoculating four Continental Army officers against smallpox. He joined up with Colonel Rogers in the Queen's Rangers and later was with Colonel James DeLancey's Westchester County Refugees (aka "Cowboys"). He left with the Spring Fleet in 1783 for soon-to-be New Brunswick, British North America. Somehow their kids met and then got married at the beginning of 1815 in Saint John right after the War of 1812 ended.
I literally laughed out loud for a good 30 seconds while my family looked at my third eye and second head. I had to rewind after I regained composure when you said "was it han solo"?
The thing about the Sugar Act that's not really explained here is that the sugar was made in the Caribbean in the first place, shipped to the UK, then shipped back to America. The colonies were required to go through this unnecessary middleman instead of buying it directly from their neighbors next door. This same pattern existed with other goods too. The law was that the colonies were Not Allowed to have their own independent means of buying goods from other colonies. They had to let everything be shipped to the UK then shipped back, to prop up UK businesses.
3:15 There were actually only 2 million colonists in North America during this time compared to 8 million in Great Britain. Just remember that the New World was still pretty new.
I read an article a few years ago that said that one of the reasons America and Ireland were on such good terms (for the most part) was because our war for independence _indirectly_ helped Ireland. Basically England was in a huge recession before the war. The bankers told the king George III that a short war would help England's economy. Not expecting to _lose_ the war it hurt their economy instead. When everything was said and done, England was left financially ruined with the countries largest source of income being the Irish wool trade. When it looked like another rebellion was coming, no doubt spurred on by America's success, England did something smart. They *lowered* taxes in Ireland, made is super easy to obtain a business license and otherwise played nice for the most part for a few years until their coffers filled back up a bit. That's what the article said anyway.
What is always left out with the Boston Tea Party is that people were not incited when the tax was imposed, but when the East India Company was made exempt. It was as if there was a fast food tax and then McDonald's chain and only the McDonald's chain was granted an exemption. You know for a short time the place would become very unpopular, until nobody could afford to eat anywhere else.
You getting excited over places and saying their names was so cute. "Boston! 😀" "New York!! 😃" I see Americans do the same thing with other countries' cities we recognize but haven't seen someone do it to ours lol
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
12:11 Jefferson was one of the fiercest critics of slavery in the Congress. He inherited all his slaves, was legally prohibited from emancipating them, and was forced to omit a scathing indictment of slavery from the Declaration of Independence by the delegates from a mere two states.
If the anti-slavery people didn't allow slavery for a short period, the south would have had slavery for another 100 years.
not to mention, the wording in the constitution was done cleverly with the intent for future Emancipation efforts to be able to use the constitution as the basis of their legal argument.
It should be common sense, especially today where great turmoil is erupting after endless moral crusades and activism, that truly good change takes time; decades even. The world wasnt ready for emancipation back then, same way it wasnt ready for womens rights or civil rights. it took time to change hearts and minds, but they wrote the founding document with the trust that better men in the future would be able to use it to achieve the dream they had for us
Oh ok that's why we should blindly obey his racist, rapist ass from beyond the grave. Got it. Thanks.
I remember reading that at the founding the US was just 3 votes away from ending slavery when the Constitution was ratified.
As it turns out the 3/5 compromise in counting slaves for representation built in the mechanism for ending slavery within the next 100 years.
@@garyg7145 I remember me right now knowing that slavery is inherently evil.
Fuck your worthless votes.
Thomas Jefferson tried several times when in the Virginia legislature to eliminate the institution of slavery and was denied.
His first draft of the Declaration actually proposed including the elimination of slavery.
He even got 11 of the 13 colonies to agree to it.
The problem was that they had decided all 13 colonies would have to agree to every decision so two states prevented that from happening in the Declaration.
History is not so black-and-white.
It’s much more nuanced.
And what we think of certain people is not necessarily so when looking through the prism of what is viewed as obvious now.
Thank you for pointing that out.
He owned slaves
So, if he felt that way why did he himself own slaves? Very hypocritical to say he was against owning people while actively owning people.
@@apopuffkin1717 Because it was illegal to just free them. He had inherited them and was not sure how to deal with it. Thus his attempts to change the laws.
@Neil oppa he also paid his slaves, not every slave owner was an asshole like today’s teachers will tell you. Pretty sure he had an affair with one of his slaves as well. What does owning slaves have anything to do with wanting to end slavery?
2:53 Because it is oversimplified, the whole reason for the colonies saying no to the "pay us back for protecting you" thing was obviously glossed over with a simple no. A slightly more nuanced version of it is that England went to war with France to take the land and it's natural resources, NOT to actually protect the colonies, though protecting the colonies was part of the deal because without them, they have no one to extract the resources and turn it into goods. After winning and England came looking for someone to pay the bill, they basically just figured since the war was all about things over there, the colonies should pay for it. This, of course, completely glosses over the fact that the colonies were poor as dirt and couldn't afford to pay it even if for some crazy reason they actually agreed to it.
Now you might ask, if they had all of the natural resources and turning it into goods to sell, why were they poor? Funny thing about the British Empire was that none of the colonies (globally) were able to do business on the world market, they could only do business with members of their own colony, or with England, who would then turn around and sell things on the world market with a hefty mark up because it's a decent quality product made from exotic (at the time) materials from a far away place. If you were a carpenter in America and you made a really nice desk, you only had two customers. A fellow American colonist who didn't really have a whole lot, or England who wouldn't pay you much better for it. As a colonist, you couldn't sell it to someone in Germany (or even a different British colony like India) who would pay you a whole lot more for it. Instead, you had to sell it to someone in England, who then turned around and sold it to someone in Germany (or a different colony) for that whole lot more "world price", and England pocketed the extra money for basically doing nothing but deliberately forcing themselves into the position of middleman, as any true capitalist would.
So England got rich by "taxing" it's colonies without actually levying a tax against them. This was annoying to most colonists, but at the same time, the benefit was the military protection from other global powers that they weren't directly paying for and for the most part the colonists being left alone to do their own thing, so it was kind of just allowed to happen without anyone on either side actually complaining about it. When King George then turned around and actually taxed the colonies with legitimate on the books taxes (the sugar act, the stamp act, etc.) to pay for the war (a war England caused fighting with France over land and then blaming the colonies for it) and telling the colonies to directly pay for the soldiers there that England without any input from the colonies decided how many soldiers and how much it costs for those soldiers, on top of already "taxing" the the colonies by not letting them sell goods on the world market, well, it kind of pissed everyone off as it broke the terms of the previous arrangement in such a way that only England was advantaged by it instead of both parties having favorable advantages that let them accept less favorable things the other side got. So the colonies said no to the on the books taxes and arguing that they want representation if England is going to start trying to control things, to which England said no, aaaaaaaaaaaand welcome to the beginning of the end of the British Empire.
Nicely written. Also fun fact, these experiences contributed to the construction of many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights; most plainly the third amendment
And as Diane should know, they did the same thing to Ireland re resources.
Your right, "no" should have upgraded to a full "NAH" 😁
You are spot on correct, sit! This is the very definition of "mercantilism," the very economic philosophy Britain applied to the colonies.
@@telocity Maybe a "NAH dude." but that may be too aggressive.
Jefferson was anti-slavery, but he has a lot of debt so he kept his slaves rather than risking one of his creditors taking them. He treated them like employees. The world was quite complex back then. Most of the American Founding Fathers weren't big fans of slavery from what I've read.
Both Adams's, and Franklin were adamantly anti-slavery, al9ng with many others.
Excellent post. Jefferson even wrote powerful language in a late draft of the Declaration that castigated the King for profiteering from slavery and instituting it upon the colonies. Of the 13 states, all but two were willing to accept that language and banish slavery from the inception of the country. However, it was universally agreed that all thirteen had to give approval to each element of the document, or any hope of a unified front against the King was hopeless. Thus, the anti-slavery platform was sacrificed for the short term, while language that did not distinguish race was agreed to, in the knowledge that the end of slavery would come in time. This is why some see confusion in the language versus the tragic reality of slavery. Yet there was not a country in the world that had even questioned the immorality of slavery until that time. America was the first, and several of the 13 states soon became the first governments in the world to ban the practice.
Employees can leave. Employees have legal rights and aren’t listed in the census alongside livestock like cows and pigs. If a boss wants to impregnate an employee, an employee has the legal right to say no thank you. He might have written in opposition to slavery as a thought exercise but he did not practice what he preached. Let’s stop re-writing history and romanticizing a flawed man as some uniquely benevolent slave owner. It’s honestly gross and offensive.
@@missliss2581able Who is rewriting history here? It was not just a thought exercise. I'd bet Thomas Jefferson did far more than you've done in your life to help people become free and equal before the law-- including his attempts to abolish slavery at the inception of the nation. You can get off your offended high horse whenever you want and try to understand the actual history and disposition of these people instead of parroting internet talking points for keyboard warrior brownie points.
This is only partially true. He did have slaves, and treated them well, but by law he could not free them until his death, if he was debt free. THis was the law in Virginia, and was different in other colonies. He and Patrick Henry were run out of the state house because they introduced a law that would allow anyone to free their slaves at any time.
But kudos for knowing that he was anti-slavery.
Diane, Did you know that the majority of the Continental Amy and Minutemen were made up of men of Irish or Scotch-Irish decent rather than British or any other nationality. The largest and most decorated Pennsylvanian unit was more than 90% Irish and were referred to as "The Irish Line" by George Washington.
I believe they even wore green coats.
The Irish in America then were overwhelmingly Protestant. During the 1840's they shifted over to many Catholics. That was because of the Potato Famine. The very numerous American Scotch Irish of today descend from those Irish Protestants. American Country music is Celtic music.
I’m a direct descended of Andrew Pickens and John C Calhoun
@@jameshudkins2210 And those Scotch-Irish weren't even really irish, they came from Lowlands of Scotland and Northern England.
The Scotch-Irish were British themselves dumbasss, and no they did not made up the majority of the continental army, they definitely were overrepresented but they were not the majority.
A couple historical errors here:
- The ship of the Boston Tea Party was NOT a British ship, it was an American ship transporting tea for the East India Trading Company. In fact many of the founders including Washington were furious at the lack of respect for private property.
- Paul Revere did NOT say "The British are coming". That wouldn't have made sense... the colonists all considered themselves British. What he said was, "The Regulars are coming". "The regulars" being a reference to the regulated British militia. (side note, that's what "well-regulated" refers to in the 2nd Amendment... not government regulation over the weapons, but an organized militia of citizens)
- It's misleading to imply that George Washington wanted to be the military leader. In fact most of his profession life was spent REFUSING service and having to be dragged into it. He really wanted to spend time at Mount Vernon with his wife. But he was such a popular figure that he routinely got called into action almost against his will entirely. He did everything he could to avoid going to the Continental Congress... in fact he outright denied the invite for months.
- In regards to Jefferson, the initial draft of the Declaration of Independence included a condemnation of slavery, which the founders felt was unjustly inflicted upon them by King George. It was unfortunately removed because they didn't think they could gain the support of the southern colonies. But the founders were well aware of the sin of slavery, they simply couldn't conceive of a way to end it without fracture and bloodshed. Perhaps to their shame. But they were not unaware of the hypocrisy.
I'm proud of you for learning more about history, Miss Diane. You always want to know more about cultures, and it is impossible to understand the world without knowing history. Keep up the good work.
I hope you have a great weekend.
😌
@@DianeJennings watch some Thomas sowell and he'll teach you all about history not just American this man is brilliant and dependable on his facts.
@@DianeJennings I also wanted to say thank you for giving me a heart. God bless you and all of your loved ones have a beautiful journey in life my friend.
The person who made the video screwed up about the shot heard round the world. It was in Concord not Lexington
Boom! History 101 right here kids! This person knows their stuff!
Good job. Glad to have you learn about our complicated history!
"December 23, 1776
THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."
-Tom Paine
I wish this wasn't quite so evergreen
two days later: THE BATTLE OF TRENTON
You provide such great material to your viewers. I appreciate all of your hard work. I truly appreciate it!
10:15 😂😂😂😂 As for the slavery...if you owned slaves, you couldn't just abandon the people. You essentially took care of them. So Jefferson did in fact inherit the slaves, and he disagreed with the practice of slavery. But don't take my word for it, do your research :)
😂😂😂
@@DianeJennings also the Boston Tea party had global effects. The East India Trading Company that was responsible for shipping Tea to the American colonies. Was ruling India my ansctors country the company ruled Bhair region where my ansctors where from. Along with Bengal Subah region now modern Bengal Bangladesh Odisha and the modern Indian state of Bengal. After the Battle of Buxar on October 22 1764 when the East India Company was given the right to collect taxes or Diwani or Laggen. They raised the Tax and stopped the saving of grain in case of Famine which was a common practice in India. When the Bengal Famine which happened in the year 1769 to the year 1770 hit it killed approximately 1 3rd of the Bengal population. The company still demand the taxes demanded the Taxes to be collected regardless of the peasantry dying on the street. This was the 1st of many Famines which happened during Brtish Colonial rule of India. As a Irish person Diane I'm sure you know this was the Brtish Empires policy in Ireland during the Irish Patoato Famine a century later this led to the Tea Act to be passed and it made the price of tea the American colonies where getting cheaper. At a monopoly from the East India Trading Company. The American colonies got cheap tea. And the company got a bailout because the Bengal Famine left them in bad shape and loss of revenue. But American Revolutionaries such as John Dickinson and others knew of the Bengal Famine in India and feared if the East India Trading Company got its tea monopoly in America. Than the company could rule all of America like they did India. And they will be no better than the people of Bengal. So this fear is one of the things that contributed to the Boston Tea party in 1773.
If I remember correctly, Jefferson's original draft did include slaves to be freed, but there was heavy debate and resistance about it, with too much worry that attacking such a monolithic institution would likely weaken and fracture the new country. I think he had a quote that referred to this unfortunate circumstance, "I tremble for my country when I realize that God is just, and that his justice cannot sleep forever." He was basically saying slavery would be an issue that would come back to haunt to America, and it did, with not the least of which being the civil war. George Washington's sentiments were much the same, in his notes he basically calls it a sin against God. These guys were pretty smart, and the hypocrisy of promising a free nation to the people whilst slavery was still allowed was not lost on them.
Dude slept and had children with his wife's half sister, Sally Hemmings, who was a product of his father-in-law's raping one of his slaves. He did this after saying that Africans are sub-human and whites should not mix with them because it will weaken the bloodline. He also died in debt meaning all of his slaves he "promised" to free were sold off to cover the cost of his debt, meaning even his own children were sold off and the Hemmings family was split apart. It had nothing to do with taking care of people. Who are you, Uncle Rukus from The Boondocks? And yes this is factual history, I've been to Monticello and studied the 2nd greatest hypocrite in US history in depth just so I can have plenty of ammo to use against apologists and slave owner sympathizers.
I'm a descendant of Nathaniel Fanning who was a midshipman on the Bonhomme Richard.His actions at the battle of Flameborough Head resulted in a victory for the Continentals. He eventually captained other ships as a privateer raiding British shipping. His fearlessness and bravery made him a legend in the US navy. Three US Navy ships have been named after him. 33 members of the family fought in the war at all military ranks. His father Gilbert was one of the main suppliers of the Continental Army.
Oh yes, please do part 2, would love to see how this turns out.😁. Love your reaction videos Diane.
Um......spoiler alert: America wins.
@@Testibus00 Why did you have to go and say that! Why would she want to react to part 2 if she thinks she knows how it is going to go?
Of course, they left out the part where Jefferson included slavery's introduction to the American colonies as a grievance against the crown in his earliest drafts of the Declaration. True, he was forced to remove it in later drafts or risk losing the southern colonies, but that's, you know, an inconvenience to modern narratives of oversimplified history rather than presenting people in the full context of their time and personal actions.
That's probably why they totally didn't mention it in the American Civil War video either.
Exactly. All I hear is the founders were liars or hypocrites when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But looking at the phrases they borrowed and created, and the ideas that they wrote in the documents and in their own personal journals and books, tell that they very much meant what they said. It was a matter of time before America had a fight about slavery, but the time was not at the founding. Also, jefferson did own slaves, but couldn't legally free them, hence attempting to change laws. I believe he also paid them.
@@braedynhoward3644 damn revisionist lie
@@kawaii33366 They oversimplified it to the point of purposefully leaving out key information, which I consider deceptive for audiences who don't do their own research.
@@braedynhoward3644 oversimplified = We only tell the parts that support a certain narrative.
I absolutely love how dry your wit is! “We are much more civilized now.” 😂😂😂
😜
The best side of RUclips is these sort of videos, learning about every topic under the sun for free
Oyster shells hurt a lot when they hit you, especially if they have a jagged edge. Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" isn't technically a book because of its length. You really should react to Part 2. :)
12:13 Yeah, Jefferson tried to outlaw slavery. He recognized that the only reason he was even in a position to write such documents was because of slavery, and he thought it was BS. He literally tried to outlaw his own wealth. It was Benjamin Franklin, a non-slave owner, that made him take it out stating, "this is a fight for another day."
Well that fight for another day came alright…
@@hihellohi5714 I believe we're all aware of that, so have I missed something you wished to contribute to the conversation?
@@occamsrazor1285 oh yeah, you missed almost 250 years worth of American history! There was a little thing called the “Civil War,” not sure you’ve heard of it
@@hihellohi5714 OK, let's say you're right and I've never heard of the Civil War. How does my never hearing of it make what I said in anyway false? Or was that not your point? Do you even have a point? Did you just want to voice your displeasure with my comment and had to really overreach to hobble together something that at least sounded like a coherent argument?
@@occamsrazor1285 you were the one who rudely responded to my first comment. What do you expect to get in return if you’re rude to people?
In doing my family genealogy, I discovered that my 6th great grandfather fought for independence at several well-known early battles as well as endured the winter of 1777-78 at Valley Forge. After the war, he married the daughter of a Loyalist who had to be thrown into the hold of a prison ship for three weeks before finally signing an oath of allegiance to the States and shutting up about his loyalty to Britain. He stayed in New York after the war instead of leaving for Canada or England, so he apparently adjusted his attitude or simply resigned to keep quiet.
Check out my comment about two of my 4th great grandfathers.
My family actually fought in this war. One of my family members was actually part of the “Lexington Alarm”, you might have heard of it as “The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere”(there was up to 50 riders). And my other ancestor camped with George Washington at Valley Forge.
Diane watches and reacts to an Oversimplified view
Of the Revolutionary War that America went through
She learned a few things beyond what she already knew
But it ended on a cliff-hanger, so we need part 2!
Razzberry is back, yay!
You should definitely do the part 2 video. I think that a lot of Americans would love to see it as well.
Fun fact, Spain plundered so much gold from Central and South America it actually lead to hyperinflation in their local economy and some people believe it was contributing factor to the collapse of the Spanish Empire.
On another note, I can not wait to see you respond to part 2
It’s been a while! Totally need a part two. Also, you and Chewie look amazing.
As if you did not already know, Monday would be a great day for part 2 of this. 😁 Another wonderful video Diane. I have always thought history was a fun topic.
I also find history fun but it depends on the topic
Yes, please do part 2! You bring a lovely new perspective and add a bit of fun to my day! Thank you for this, as I am mostly housebound, and need some light-hearted videos to watch.
Hey Di, two things that really grind my gears. Excessive taxes and death. The latter being the only way to escape the former. Thank you for the fun clip. I rather enjoyed it. Gotta go my country is having a birthday today. 🎂 🇨🇦 Have a great weekend. 😃 P. S. Please do part two.
Happy Canada day!! I’ll be celebrating over the weekend…
I don't know how taxes work in Canada, but in America, death isn't an escape from taxes, it is an occasion for the government to levy the death tax (officially known as the "inheritance tax").
Irony of ironies: the tax burden that we rebelled over would be preferable to the tax burden of modern day America. But hopefully we can eventually fix that without another revolution, since this time we do have representation.
They also failed to mention about the proclamation line of 1763. This basically meant that all the land west of the Appalachians was off limits for British settlers. This pissed off the colonists big time since they couldn’t access the land that they fought for not even a few months ago.
You've got to remember that back then one Pound Sterling literally represented a pound of silver.
So imagine that the colonists in Boston destroyed £10,000 pounds of silver when they tossed all that tea into the harbor
Right now one pound of silver is worth about $285 so the current value of that tea would be $285,000. But it would have been more valuable back then.
not to nitpick, (so here I go, nitpicking) but you missed a zero. It should be $2.85 Million. Which seems like what I paid for gas and groceries last week...
12:25 Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration actually railed against Britain for causing and encouraging slavery in America, but that part was removed because everyone else thought it was too controversial.
Not everyone, just a couple of delegations...
Yay!, I’m so glad you finally started reacting to this! Happy 4th of July. I only wish we still had liberty in the US.
I love this video like honestly I’ve watched these like millions of times when I just started watching your videos and I really like them
Often overlooked in US History quick bits, but slavery was in fact a point of contention at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence. The society of the time was in partial support of the vile world practice and the Founding Fathers purposely wrote the declaration to pave the way for the eventual abolishment of slavery. There are numerous texts from founders that spoke against the practice and the original drafts of the declaration did in fact include statements denouncing slavery; where Thomas Jefferson wrote that King George "waged cruel War against Nature itself, violating its most sacred Rights of Life and Liberty in the Persons of a distant People who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into Slavery in another Hemisphere, or to incur miserable Death, in their Transportation thither." Unfortunately, the world and western societies hadn't reached the consensus of slavery being evil yet. So, the founders settled on leaving the practice of slavery unprotected and unacknowledged in the declaration so it could be dealt with at a later point when the colonies weren't dealing with a war with England. Slavery was a conscious political omission from the Declaration of Independence so that the colonies would remain united in their fight against England.
Also Jefferson and the other members feared that the some of the southern states would reject that denounciation and the founders wanted apporval of everything in the Delaration to be unaimous cause they knew England would use anything it could to divide the states from each other during the war.
Thank you for filling people in, on "the rest of if story."
It's a mix of "sad," "frustrating," "disappointing," and "infuriating," that this part of U.S. history gets swept under the rug, in the midst circulated and studied history books, in our public school system.
The simple truth is, no nation, in world history, abolished slavery in stock a short time, as the United States. (Less than a century of its existence.)
It truly urks me when people throw the tired argument, about the "three fifths clause," against the wall, to see if it sticks...without acknowledging who did, and who didn't want it in the constitution, and 2. How it helped this nation abolish slavery.
So, again, thank you for bringing up such a monumentally important point.
Yep, and most people don't realize that the 3/5ths Compromise was a good thing.
@@TheAtkey They didn't just fear it - two of the delegations repeatedly voted it down, in a body that was aiming for unanimous consent.
@@Dano_in_Texas People throwing the 3/5 clause in don't understand how insidious a trap it really was... for the SLAVERY holders! The slave holders wanted all their slaves to be counted as "citizens" without having any rights - that way, more population = more votes in Congress. Meanwhile some anti-slavers were wanting to figure out a way to free them, so wanted to not count slaves at all, because they wouldn't be able to count towards votes - but the majority of anti-slavers realized how that dehumanized slavery even more - so they came up with the idea that they count as part, but with allowing freed slaves to count as full citizens, the more slaves freed, the more population, thus the more powerful the free states became.
A nice trap to break people who can't think logically. And it still shows as such to this day.
Sooo about the "all men are created equal" thing. There's actually a very thorough history of setting up the ending of slavery here from the very foundation of our country. The founders (not defending them, simply explaining their thoughts, right or wrong) believed that if they banned slavery from the start, there wouldn't be enough cohesion to keep the union together. There wouldn't be a country, essentially. So they took several measures to ensure that slavery would end once the country was established. Did many see slaves as less than human? Of course, sadly, horrifically. Did all of them, including the founders? No. This was a very big issue to them and not one they glossed over. Again, not saying they made the right choices, just saying that if anyone finds that line contradictory (and it is, but it's not the whole story), they should look into the things done at that time that showed the founders' intentions.
Yes you have to react to part 2 you can't leave it there. I hope everyone is safe and enjoys their upcoming 4th 🇺🇸
So, I am an American, my ancestor fought in the Revolutionary War. When it comes to the Founding Father's owning slaves and the "hypocrisy" of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, there is a couple of points that needs to be mentioned.
First, a lot of the Founders we're against slavery. In fact, given religion was a staple of this country, they argued that Christianity is antithetical to slavery. But, point 2 is where things get sticky.
Secondly, what I am about to say will sound horrible because it is horrible, but it's just cold hard facts. At that time in history, slavery was viewed the same as owning horses. And a lot of slave owners, and white people in general, did not view blacks and natives as people, or even human. Slavery was absolutely critically to the development of the economy from colonial America to early USA. But here is the problem - people today want to judge people's actions 200 years ago based on the morality and education of today. That is not fair to those people. I use this loose analogy: If 200 years from today it is learned by science and comes to be common knowledge that dogs and cats aren't only intelligent beings, but they have rights too, and the people 200 years from now believe that owning dogs and cats is immoral, disgusting, and violates their natural rights given to them by God and they pass laws saying it is illegal to own a dog or cat, does that mean that those of us that own dogs and cats today are evil people who are owning them to perpetuate some speciest ideology? Owning people is obviously disgusting and immoral, but at that time, slaves were not viewed/believed to be people. They were viewed as tools that were used to increase wealth and generate economic growth.... Kinda how farmers use horses/mules to pull plows to prepare the fields for planting, slaves were used to harvest the fields.
So, the Founders were not evil because they owned slaves. They were geniuses because they created a country that had in it's founding documents, the tools/mechanisms necessary to eventually eradicate slavery. Unfortunately, because abolition of slavery was such a minority view (no matter whether you believed slaves were people), most of the states had laws that protected the institution of slavery, which is why the Founders couldn't "just set them free".
It is extremely unfair to judge historical figures/cultures based on today's morality/knowledge on any topic. You are talking about a time period where you were lucky if your community had 10-15% of its citizens that could read/write. They were largely just trying to survive and that didn't allow a lot of time to reflect on "social justice". Luckily, USA Citizens live in a country where everyone has the same start and has control over how their life will play out (minus disease or natural disasters). We have freedoms that a lot of people even today, can't imagine.
The actual story of the Battle of Lexington and Concord was atually a slow motion hell-march for the Redcoats. Sad for th individual Tommy, but not a lick of remorse for the Holy Crown (1776-1916)
One additional comment-- The large proportion of Celts in the formation of this country is incredible. I have looked at some Celtic history and it is amazing at how well England managed to divide and conquer the Celtic countries. I believe their tactics led to the Celts creating a new country free of royalty, going back to the simpler Clan and Sept structure, applying it to a governmental model.
And Yes! Please do a part 2.
Some things that aren't mentioned properly here: Thomas Jefferson initially wrote the Declaration with a paragraph including persons from Africa. But they took it out in fear of not getting support from all the colonists. Other facts about slavery in America they don't mention here..although they are quick to try making Jefferson look stupid.
Although the hostilities technically ended in 1781, the treaty wasn't signed until 1783...finally recognizing the United States as a country. They didn't even have a government yet. It wasn't until the Constitutional Convention of 1787, that the current form of US government was established. And it would be two more years before the George Washington's term as the 1st US President began. They like to point out that Jefferson and Washington had slaves but, they don't mention the whole story and they leave some VERY VITAL information out because it destroys the ANTI-AMERICA narrative they want to push. But...
To begin with, Washington DID have slaves. He is also on the record in 1783 suggesting the Emancipation of Slavery...that's right, the first US President suggested it..it wasn't an original thought of Abraham Lincoln's. George Washington is also on record in 1786, suggesting the new US government find a way to end slavery because he hated the concept. Did he continue to buy slaves? Yes, but there's a reason why if you ever read his diary and his ledgers kept at his museum. He hated seeing slave families tore apart. So, he would buy entire families to keep them together. However, even though he didn't provide them with standard housing, he did other things that a "racist" would NOT have done as a slave owner. He gave them a place to live, gave them land to grow their own crops to eat and to sell at the local market (for their own financial gain) and he even gave the "slaves" guns so they could hunt for meat for their families...and sell the pelts on the market to make money for themselves. What kind of slave owner would give weapons to the people he's trying to oppress?
Now, people think the US government allowed and endorsed slave trading until the end of the Civil War. Absolute bs. The US actually passed a law outlawing Slave Trade in 1801...only twelve years after the 1st US President took office. Now, why did it take twelve years? Well, they had a country to build, establish trade, establish laws, etc. Let us NOT forget they had everyone chipping away at them trying to prevent them from actually succeeding in becoming a nation. They had little frontier wars with many different native American tribes, they had the British still wanting their colonies back, and they had the Quasi War (war with France) from 1798 to 1800. So, it took twelve years before they outlawed slave trading. Now, I know what a lot of people think, why did it continue if it took so long. Well, how well did Prohibition stop alcohol? How well has the US war on drugs done at stopping drugs in America? There are laws against running stop signs, robbing banks, murder...yet these things happen EVERY day. So, just because they passed a law, it didn't automatically stop it. Even though it was slavery and not alcohol, there's those Al Capones in every market. However, the US did deem slave trading an act of Piracy and in 1820, they began sailing the coast of Africa and the Atlantic Ocean, trying to stop slave ships. The problem here is most people think that should have stopped it. But the US Navy wasn't what it is today, they didn't have a lot of ships, they didn't have satellites, they didn't have radar, they didn't have helicopters or airplanes to help them hunt ships...and they were old wooden sail ships. Do you have any idea how long it would take an old sailing ship to patrol the coast of Africa? They were bound to miss ships. But the US Navy actually patrolled the waters, stopping and freeing several slave ships from 1820 until 1862.
Oh, and let's circle back to Jefferson. What a lot of people forget, because they don't want to teach it....at the same time the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was taking African Slaves from Africa...there was another HUGE slave trade going on. It was called the Barbary Slave Trade. For roughly 400 years, African navies were raiding coastal European towns all the way up to Iceland and taking white Christians back to Africa to be sold into slavery. When the US won its independence, many of the US merchant ships were seized by these African navies and the Americans on board were sent back to Africa to be sold into slavery. George Washington and John Adams knew we did NOT have an army to go overseas and fight a war. So, they would spend up to 1/3 of our nation's tax revues to buy Americans back from slavery in Africa. Thomas Jefferson ended this. He sent a small fleet of US warships, nine US Marines and 500 Greek mercenaries to go to war against these African nations. It's known in America as The First Barbary War...from 1801 to 1805. It's not taught, but the history is in our daily lives if we knew what we were looking for. The US Marine Corps hymn mentions it in the famous line "From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli". The Marines are proud that their small force overwhelmed and defeated an army of five Northern African nations. Ever hear of Decatur Illinois? Decatur was a war hero from that war.
In actuality, the US as a nation, was not pro slavery. The 1st President opposed it. The third President sent the Marines to Africa to end it. And the US sent troops to Africa three times to end slave trading...the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805, the Second Barbary War in 1815 and again to defend the former US slaves who went back to Africa. Oh, you've never heard of that. Look up the country of Liberia, established in 1847. It's in Africa, it has the same flag, the same laws and the same government as the US. Why? It was established by American citizens as a place where freed slaves and their descendants could go to if they wished to leave America and go back to Africa. Eventually, the US Government helped fund it for a while. And when the other African nations started entering Liberia and stealing its citizens to sell into slavery, the US sent troops to protect the Liberia people.
There's so much that is taught about history that makes the US look bad, but if the left wing would teach the whole story, there'd be a lot less hate in today's world.
Very interesting, learned a few things. Only thing is I'm sure they didn't take abolishing out of the Declaration of Independence out of fear, they voted on it and 2 states out of the 13 voted against it and it had to be unanimous.
Jesus Christ you are absolutely delusional if you earnestly believe leftist education policies create hate. Being accountable for the past is the whole entire reason history exists. You are missing the point of your own passion in the full, gloriously oblivious irony that baby boomers have become famous for, right behind being incompetent. What kind of freak hangs onto their creepy, coded, and modified version of history instead of just shutting the fuck up and accepting that the internet exists now and things change daily and you need to vote for TOMORROW not yesterday
Oh yeah, they have tought about the Barbary Wars since the 1990s. Kids nowadays learn calculus in 7th grade genius, they can history the shit out of you, I guarantee all the history you want so badly to know has all been thrown in the 1980s garbage you crawled out of and replaced with better information, because that is precisely how living into the future works when you are originally from the past. You get to certain age, realize everyone lives in an illusion customized to their own prejudice, then you admit you've been clueless all along, admit you hurt the world for generations and caused untold harm to society, shut up, and start playing the game properly by the rules, where everyone works to make a free society barely function
@@maaingan I teach at the college level... kids today can't even do 9+5 in their head without grabbing the calculator app on their phone... let alone understand the nuances of trigonometry or calculus... PLUS - no, they are definitely not taught about the nuance of how slave owners could also be against slavery - how the laws on the books prevented them from freeing those assets, just like you can't legally burn down your own house or car if you owe against it... and those really are just "things" not sentient beings...
The failure of our educational system is on display every day.
EDIT : for the TL:dr set - the "better information" is set out there by people who willingly are trying to undermine the good America did to end slavery. It isn't "better", it's lies by omission.
I was right there with you until you decided to declare that people not knowing these things is due to the left wing not wanting it taught. You do know Texas controls textbook publication, right? That famously left-wing state? And, there's not a thing in your comment that I didn't already know. Most of which I learned, in the 80s, in Virginia. You're able to recognize nuance in history but not able to recognize nuance in modern education or political opinion?
I live just an hour and a half south of Fort Ticonderoga, and a half hour south of Saratoga. The entire area around me is full of amazing American history, especially relating to the Revolutionary War. My home town is on the Mohawk River and it’s said that George Washington came through the area to cross the river.
This is a good one for the 4th of July weekend. Started over taxes, masterminded in Boston and bankrolled mostly from Virginia.
😜
Only bad thing that happened this 4th weekend is Techno 😢😢 R.I.P. he will forever live in our hearts
@@DianeJennings lord Charles Cornwallis after losing at Yorktown to Geroge Washington at Yorktown Virginia in the American Revolution was later transferred to another famous British colony India where he was made comander and chief of Brtish India. Or Governor General of India. In February 1786. Cornwallis passed a series of administrative reform to help the East India Trading Company rule India better. By reducing nepotism and political favoritism instituted merit based for the East India Trading Company officials got rid of child slavery opened a Hindu College. Won the 3rd Anglo Mysore war defeating Tipu Sultan and bringing 1 half of the Mysore Kingdom under East India Company rule. Cornwallis helped passed the Cornwallis Codes a series of acts that layed the Foundation of Brtish rule in India by introducing institutional rascism in the legal system. And making sure Indians could not go on to higher positions as cvil servants on the people of India. In June 1798 Cornwallis went to another Famous British colony your home country of Ireland. Cornwallis became Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and comander and chief of Ireland putting down the 1798 Irish Rebellion. Supported the Act of union of 1801. So losing in America didn't effect his popularity or standing in the Brtish Empire. He made up for his defeat in India and Ireland as governor General.
@@DianeJennings Just wanted to correct you in 3:15. The colonies might have been large in size but they only had 2.5 million colonists compared to 8 million people in Great Britain.
With the paperwork completed in Philadelphia.
The Declaration of Independence is the best depiction of the situation at the time.
The Han Solo line just killed me, I guess Diane shot first.
That was the best part of the whole video. Yes, yes Han absolutely shot first.
You should do Part 2. The Oversimplified videos are fantastic
Diane you're so smart 😘 what a coincidence that you didn't know this came in two parts yet Monday just happens to be July 4th. Clever Woman you are 😁💚
You do some pretty darn good editing yourself. I enjoy your work! If if you do part 1, you should probably do part 2. July 4th is Independence Day for USA
Great video Diane! Loved the impromptu laugh! I don't think I've seen you laugh that hard before.
Considering how long the Bible has been around, it most likely is the best selling book in the world. It's also the most banned book.
PS - I use an ad blocker on my desktop, works great. 😉 I don't block ads on your videos though. Lol.
It is!
@@DianeJennings Hi Diane. Yes please do react to Part 2. Hello from North Carolina, one of the original 13 Colonies. Give Sir Chewbert of Chewington a belly rub from me.
Happy Fourth of July!
There's quite alot of history not taught here in the US about many of the wars of history, usually only the parts that make America look rightful in their actions. I enjoy learning all sides and parts of history because the more you know the better for the future. Also cool video, I learned some new stuff too.
I had forgotten how much fun this oversimplified series was. Yeah, you definitely should watch part 2.
Thanks for celebrating our independence day with us Dianne!!
For more details on TJ & the Declaration of Independance, the musical "1776" which came out on the bicentennial in 1976 is a great retelling of the conflicts & compromises.
12:19 It wasn't that simple. Slavery was a common practice and you'll understand later in the drafting of the Constitution and bill of rights, why slavery remained and Jefferson had them. Simple fact was, he couldn't free that at the time, without harsh repercussions. If they didn't make that compromise with the Southern states, America would have crumbled and the British Empire would have taken control back during the infancy stage of America.
When you watch part 2 you'll see why Americans treat George Washington as an almost-holy figure. Without him we wouldn't have won our independence, and his actions set such a strong example that we still hold some of his beliefs as important parts of our national culture. He is literally known as the "father of our nation"
well that and some British bumbling.
The Prayer at Valley Forge hangs on my living room wall.
and without the French, Spanish etc
@@jpw6893 Obviously George Washington neither single-handedly defeated the British, nor established every norm of the U.S. body politic, but saying that doesn't take away from the well deserved respect he gets for his monumental role in both.
Interestingly, George Washington's family history intersects with the Spencer family (as in Lady Diana Spencer) back in England.
I teach U.S. and Global History at the university level to freshmen and sophomores. This video is very fun and accurate, I enjoy watching reactions. American students come into universities with a broad background. U.S. schools vary in what they are teaching and students vary in interest. I am sure this is the same in Europe.
Good evening Diane, I hope you and Chewie are doing well. Yes, I really like Oversimplified. One of my degrees is in Western history and he gets most of the important aspects of any historical event pretty accurately and in an entertaining way. Definitely do part two. Give Chewie a kiss for me, and Chewie, give Diane a kiss from me. Love you, and goodbye for now! x
One of the other facts that was simplified out of this lesson; the first person killed in the Boston massacre was a sailor by the name of Crispus Attucks. A Black American patriot.
If you enjoyed part one, you'll definitely like part two.
A
A
Great show. This is how they should teach History in school. Jefferson had slaves, but he did not buy them, it was an inheritance. As the years went by he freed them, gave them education and some stayed on as free people. Even Washington has slaves, but again inherited. Your reactions are great.
To be fair to the British side, Ben Franklin, our representative going back and forth, kept telling them "nah, the Colonists are fine, don't worry about it!" while living it up playboy style, and back in the Americas you had rich landowners and big business merchants whipping up common folk who were largely unaffected into a frenzy. Meanwhile the French, who are one of the main reasons the Colonists got their independence have continually had their role downplayed in a lot of lessons. Especially ever since WWII, with French military having become synonymous with cowards, in pop culture.
Don't forget about the Prussians. Almost no one remembers that Prussia was the first country to support us. Our army was trained by Prussian soldiers. France wouldn't have agreed to join if Prussia hadn't first joined. Most people think Germany fought against us because of the hessian mercenaries fighting for the British. There was no Germany at that time. The largest part of Germany was Prussia. The king of Prussia, Frederic the great hated George III of England.
Basically, the rest of Europe back the colonies because they were sick of the British.
Outstanding move.
You gottttttttttta do part 2 I've waited so long for you to do this bro
Even though I've seen this video before these portrayals of history is so fun and entertaining I can watch it again and again. Definitely react to the next part.
yes, please react to the second part. Also, I do have RUclips Premium, although I don't like having it, but I spent way too many decades having commercial breaks shoved down my throat to want to watch all those ads. They keep sneaking more and more ads into the videos themselves, delivered by the video creators. They hit you going and coming, no matter what you do. Love your videos, by the way.
There were both Free Black Americans and slaves who were freed if they would fight for America's independence during the war. Peter Samuel, a freed slave, was called the Hero of Bunker Hill by his commanding officer. The same officer painted a portrait of the battle showing Peter behind him. Some might think the portrait shows Peter in fear, cowering behind his CO, but if you look closely, you can see that he had just been shot in the midsection, and his CO stood in front of him to keep him from being wounded again.
Then there's James Armistead, a freed slave who served under General Lafayette. With his superior's permission, he went to the British, feigning himself an escaped slave who had been brutalized by his masters. The British believed him and promised to treat him better if he would spy on the Americans and pass on their plans. So...
James passed bad intel off to the British while informing the Americans of British plans and, most famously, convinced General Cornwallis that there were no American forces in Yorktown, leading to America's greatest victory and the end of the war. Years later, when he knew he was dying, General Lafayette came to America one last time, he saw a familiar face in Charleston. James Armistead. These two old warriors embraced in one last "foxhole buddy" moment, a French marquis...
And his free American friend.
"Was it Han Solo?" Had me laughing in tears bahaha 😂😆🤣 Girl.. you're the best I swear!
8:00 Its an important thing to note that Paul Revere and the rest of the messengers didn't say "The British are Coming!" as that would make little sense considering the majority of colonists considered themselves British citizens. In reality, they said "The redcoats/regulars are coming!".
Just found your channel with RUclips recommending this video. It was very entertaining. I am now a new subscriber. I look forward to seeing more videos. Thank you.
As a descent of the revolutionary war, please do part 2 so charming to see your reactions
Hi Diane , This is my first time watching your videos and am impressed with the content...PLEASE keep it up Gal 👍☺
12:16 FYI Jeferson's draft of the constitution did include freeing the slaves, but the south would not sign if it stayed in. Ben Franklin "we are only men trying to start a nation the issue must be left to better men than us"
Thank you for all the great content. Yes please on that part two.
Jefferson included an entire section against the slave trade and institution that the British Empire was fine with prior to the American Revolution. It was removed from the Declaration for fear the Southerners would withdrawal from the War of Independence.
I've never heard someone say Philly!!!, so excitedly in my life. You're the best. Love your videos.
Oyster shells are sharp as hell when they dry out and you sharpen them to scrape hides.
To the best of our knowledge through research, Paul Revere couldn't ride horses at all. Most of the night ride screaming was a 15 year old girl.
Far funnier was in 1812 when the British were chased out of Washington by a tornado.
"Hypocritical or not, Jefferson’s public stance on the slave trade in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence was quite clear. “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him,” Jefferson wrote of King George III. “Captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisp[h]ere.” When the document was sent to Congress for its approval, the representative from South Carolina took issue with its anti-slavery sentiment. After it had been edited by Congress, the resulting document was still one that would send echoes of freedom throughout the colonies. But it didn’t mean the same for all the new country’s inhabitants as the original draft would have. The result was the strange juxtaposition of slavery amid calls for freedom."
For a great telling of this story watch Liberty! The American Revolution. It may be found on RUclips.
God bless Ireland!
Minor discrepancy in the Oversimplified video. The skirmish in Lexington is NOT where “the shot heard around the world” was fired. It was in Concord where the first shots were fired. Specifically at a location known as the Old North Bridge
Definitely looking for Part 2!
Definitely part 2. I love the Over Simplified channel
“Was it Han Solo?” I died! I love you!
Yes, do a part 2. Thank you!
@8:00: i learned in school that Paul Revere began the ride with one of his slaves to warn "The Regulars are coming" but stopped on the first town because he was tired. His slave rode on to warn the others and Revere got credit because he owned the person. The word Regulars was used because the colonists, too, were British.
"People are more civilized today" Dripping.. absolutely dripping.
There originally was a section in the Declaration of Independence that opposed slavery, but it wasn't included because the authors (yes, more than just Jefferson) feared it would lose support from the states.
oyster shells. throwing a rock may give a lump on the head, but opened oyster shells have pretty sharp edges, causing lacerations.
I just stumbled across your channel. The bit: Someone fired first... "Was it Han Solo?" - okay, love this humor already. Subbed right there. And yes, please react to part 2!
3:30 the harshest bit on the sugar act, both the brits and the american colonies were getting sugar from the Caribbeans. The sugar act made it mandatory to buy sugar from england (so shipped from Caribbeans to England refined and sold to america at a higher prices than America could easily get just to their south)
My mother attended school in Romford, Essex from about '26 to '38. She married a Yankee airman in '44. She told me whilst I was attending an American school and learning about the American rebellion for the first time (grade five) that the whole story of Yankee independence was glossed over and mostly ignored in her school curriculum.
My 4th great grandfather Caleb was part of Colonel Arnold's Expedition to Quebec. He got smallpox, and was court-martialed after his enlistment expired at the end of 1775, but he finally got a pass to leave at the beginning of May 1776. It took him a month to walk home up the St. Lawrence, the Richelieu, Lake Champlain, and across Vermont and Massachusetts to Newburyport. Another 4th great grandfather, Dr. Azor Betts, a doctor in New York, was arrested and imprisoned twice in 1776 by the New York Committee of Safety - once for calling Congress "a bunch of damned rascals" and again later for inoculating four Continental Army officers against smallpox. He joined up with Colonel Rogers in the Queen's Rangers and later was with Colonel James DeLancey's Westchester County Refugees (aka "Cowboys"). He left with the Spring Fleet in 1783 for soon-to-be New Brunswick, British North America. Somehow their kids met and then got married at the beginning of 1815 in Saint John right after the War of 1812 ended.
I literally laughed out loud for a good 30 seconds while my family looked at my third eye and second head. I had to rewind after I regained composure when you said "was it han solo"?
yes, do a part 2 - you've got us on pins and needles to hear how this story turns out
The thing about the Sugar Act that's not really explained here is that the sugar was made in the Caribbean in the first place, shipped to the UK, then shipped back to America. The colonies were required to go through this unnecessary middleman instead of buying it directly from their neighbors next door. This same pattern existed with other goods too. The law was that the colonies were Not Allowed to have their own independent means of buying goods from other colonies. They had to let everything be shipped to the UK then shipped back, to prop up UK businesses.
Yes definitely want to see part 2
3:15 There were actually only 2 million colonists in North America during this time compared to 8 million in Great Britain. Just remember that the New World was still pretty new.
“People are more civilized today…”
Cue the Riots in 2020.
I read an article a few years ago that said that one of the reasons America and Ireland were on such good terms (for the most part) was because our war for independence _indirectly_ helped Ireland. Basically England was in a huge recession before the war. The bankers told the king George III that a short war would help England's economy. Not expecting to _lose_ the war it hurt their economy instead. When everything was said and done, England was left financially ruined with the countries largest source of income being the Irish wool trade. When it looked like another rebellion was coming, no doubt spurred on by America's success, England did something smart. They *lowered* taxes in Ireland, made is super easy to obtain a business license and otherwise played nice for the most part for a few years until their coffers filled back up a bit. That's what the article said anyway.
What is always left out with the Boston Tea Party is that people were not incited when the tax was imposed, but when the East India Company was made exempt. It was as if there was a fast food tax and then McDonald's chain and only the McDonald's chain was granted an exemption. You know for a short time the place would become very unpopular, until nobody could afford to eat anywhere else.
2:39 as a man with deep Irish roots, I totally love this shoutout.
You getting excited over places and saying their names was so cute. "Boston! 😀" "New York!! 😃" I see Americans do the same thing with other countries' cities we recognize but haven't seen someone do it to ours lol
We need a part 2 Diane!!!
We want part 2!!! We want part 2!!! 🙂☺️😋