The crown only wanted to tax the yanks on tea & limited luxury goods. They were so daft that they chose to pay vastly more tax under their own leadership that they got just as little say with a copy of the English bills of rights shortened called the USA constitution. Seems like a lot of effort on the USA's part for nothing. The Canuck's just asked politely for self dominion in a letter instead of making demands! Yanks never had any tact or reason & this is why 0,2 million yanks passed for no reason. Even Brits wrote of what a pointless war it was! Mind doesn't work for USA indoctrination called education which it is no such thing. Still Britain's parliament being a Sh!t show at the time didn't help matters with domestic affa8irs unstable to say the least.
One reason the tea tax was so controversial is because part of its purpose was to pay the salaries of colonial governors who had previously been paid by local taxes. This was a scheme to make governors dependent on the British government directly, so in that sense it was a direct challenge to the autonomy of the colonies.
This. It wasn’t about cutting taxes, it was about who passed those taxes. The system that had been in place since Walpole was PM had the colonists passing the taxes themselves and then sending the requested money back to the king. In essence, the American colonists viewed themselves as having a similar legal standing to the Channel Islands. They were directly under the crown and not subject to parliament. The issue comes from Lord North and George III letting parliament govern the colonies instead of the crown.
@@diegoflores9237 Not true! In practical terms the colonies were governed by their respective general assemblies, who raised their own taxes. The governor's were generally appointed by the crown, but in the late colonial period they were generally at the mercy of the legislatures because they were responsible for paying the governor's salary, similar to how the English Crown had limited power because only parliament could levy taxes. Because the tea tax was to remove this power from the legislature, this would give governors, and therefore the crown, more de facto power to act against the legislature.
@ While they colonies were governed by Britain, Britain had been fairly hands off regarding the colonies. They generally had their own internal legislatures that could counterbalance the governors appointed by the king. The colonies answered to the king. Parliament had little to do with them until after the Seven Years War, when George III and Lord North tried to bring them under the control of parliament and reduce the power of the colonial legislatures.
Well, that may be… But we only have modern evidence of it working with the French trying to take the Brits down.Britain won the 7 years War and could have taken the Caribbean colonies also if they Wanted. But in typical Parliamentary Democratic style Parliament by majority allowed France to keep the Caribbean which was there most productive colony.The reason was to avoid a revenge attack by France… As if France was going to be okay with losing its other colonies LOL!. France only managed catch up ENOUGH with the naval hardware to be able to support the colonists in the war of independence because it had this colony in which to extract value. That single action may be the worst decision in history, because the colonists would have lost without French and Spanish support and the Brits had the Industrial Revolution only decades later, which could have led to a Rome like longevity of dominance for the British, because undoubtedly they would have been covert about industrial practices in such a timeline where they had suppressed a rebellion, unlike our timeline where they sold the skills and techniques necessary for industrial practice to the highest bidders in the early to mid 19th century
"The American settlers were free to expand as far west as the Mississippi river, whether there be Native Americans there or not." Ironically, this was another major source of tension between the Crown and the colonists. After some rather bloody hostilities between the natives and the settlers, London decided to forbid any further settler expansion west of the Appalachian mountains (the Proclamation Line of 1763). American colonists duly ignored this, and it was a source of considerable friction between the two sides.
@@OsirisLord the main reason they were upset is because the whole reason the seven years war was fought, was over Ohio and the French territory west of the Appalachian mountains. The colonists were promised that land after the war, after the war, Britain went back on their promise the British were still genociding natives in many of their colonies. They just didn’t want the Americans to expand, and this led to a lot of tension when they started taxing them for the war. Well, not giving them any of the gains that the Americans had been promised.
I’ll be honest, when I saw the title I was thinking “huh I wonder who it could be, James Buchanan? Nah that wouldn’t make sense” then I saw it was revolutionary war “oh maybe it’s Benedict Arnold” then I read the description “who the hell is Lord North?”
I have always found the way the American Revolution is taught in American schools was shit. The constitutional monarch is the tyrant but not the Prime Minister whose Parliament passed the taxes?
@@DyknownYeah, as an American we don’t really learn a whole lot about the actual British politics during the Revolutionary War, it feels very much like we just imagine King George as fucking Sauron.
@@InquisitorThomas That was a deliberate propaganda effort to avoid offending Parliament, mindful of the need to eventually negotiate with them for a peace treaty.
The more i read about the american revolution the more i realize the nation was built on hundreds of myths. The brits were much fairer to them than any other colonies and only taxed them to pay debts acrued defending them. They act like britain was evil and oppresive to them but it absolutely wasnt. Then of course the americans would go on to tax the hell out of many peoples without even acknowledging their humanity let alone offer them representation
I am glad you lot got independence but one can't help but wonder what would've happened if he'd been allowed to resign and we'd had a PM who actually new how to lead a war/ lead negotiations
@isaac3140 I mean he knew war wasn't his thing and tried the responsible thing of passing on his title to someone who could actually do war but wasn't allowed to
The more i read about the american revolution the more i realize the nation was built on hundreds of myths. The brits were much fairer to them than any other colonies and only taxed them to pay debts acrued defending them. They act like britain was evil and oppresive to them but it absolutely wasnt. Then of course the americans would go on to tax the hell out of many peoples without even acknowledging their humanity let alone offer them representation
4:20 "Tabling" means the complete opposite thing to Americans from what it does to the British. If something is tabled in parliament, that means it's being brought to the floor for discussion.
Colonial representatives DID ask for representation in parliament. Many times and over several years, both as a collective and as individual colonies. British parliament members also brought the matter up and even pointed out instances in which groups petitioned parliament for representation and were successful. That’s the wild part of it all. Both sides had people asking to just give the American Colonies representation, yet it somehow went nowhere.
@@ElizabethMcCormick-s2n A young colonist, John Robinson found an intact crate on the shore after the "Tea Party." His family kept it as a keepsake of the event until it was acquired by the museum previously mentioned. If there's one thing Bostonians know how to capitalize on, it's their role in kicking off the Revolutionary War.
OK but I want to DRINK the tea tho. How can I be fully educated on our history if I cannot DRINK the famous tea. I don't care how much you have to dilute it.i don't care if it's 25.00 dollars a glass. I want to drink the tea
Part of the reason Parliament never gave America any seats, was that it would trigger a larger question of "well now the other colonies want seats". Parliament knew that if they started giving the other colonies representatives they could form a powerful voting bloc, effectively allowing the colonies to rule over the home islands which was the last thing the british empire wanted.
Very true, though I'm not certain the American Colonies considered that since it appears that they, or at least the ones in charge, didn't actually want representation since they feared that the rest of Parliament would just outvote their representatives who might not even vote in favor of them after spending time in London.
@@Lorekeeper72 I would disagree the feeling in the beginning was that since they (the people of the american colonies) are englishmen the magna carta grants them the right of representation, which is correct and part of the reason parliament didn't want to comply since the other colonies would then need representatives. also the olive branch petition and the 1774 petition to the king which jack writes off in this video, states that while the colonies felt that parliament was overstepping their powers they still believed they were loyal subjects of the king. Again the general belief at the start was for a push for a seat in parliament it was only after fighting started that the fringe belief of full independence became mainline.
If only there were some guys around who knew how to structure a government that could balance states of differing size and power so that each one can be properly represented, while also not being able to deprive each other of rights.
They didn't want to give them a vote since the whole economic system was forcing manufactured products on the colonies and they knew the colonies wouldn't go along with that if they had a vote. It's why they rejected federalizing the British empire later on India could not be allowed to industrialize
Yeah America should have sent him a fruit basket and said "Thanks for botching it up so much, we appreciate you!" At the very least the poor guy would have been praised by *someone* .
He had the wrong talents for the wrong time. He tried too hard to compromise on everything, rather than carefully pick and choose what to compromise on based on an understanding of what everyone wanted.
@@isaac3140 how is he talentless? All his measures were reasonable and made sense. The Americans just wanted to whine over EVERYTHING and used the sentiment of taxation without representation as a boldfaced lie to avoid paying their fairshare
Yes and no. Colonies could and did renegotiate borders with the native tribes, so the Proclamation Line of 1763 that we all see in maps of the time was actually no longer the border by 1775. But the principle remained that they didn't _want_ to have to negotiate with the tribes on an equal footing.
This was both a major cause of the war, and the primary reason Canada (what was then Quebec) didn't join the rebellion, because they had been given all the territory around the Great lakes north of the Ohio river, and not the 13 Colonies.
I've always said, even before Hamilton, that George III gets blamed for the war because he was the King. But by this point in history, it was Parliament, not the crown, who held that kind of power. It was far more the fault of Lord North and Viscount Sackville, in their refusal to compromise or even consider the colonial interests. George III was extremely sympathetic to the colonies at first, calling the taxes basically an unjust tyranny against a people who had no representation.
George III was largely to blame. He was a young monarch that was enthralled at this point with the idea of being an absolute monarch like his continental counterparts, but even the king's faction in Parliament (the Tories) proved resistant to the idea of surrendering their hard won power to an all powerful sovereign. This denial led George to find other avenues to obtain that power, and the Privy Council (which oversaw Britain's colonies) became the outlet for his ambition. The Crown used Lord Bute and Lord North's (the king's personal friends) control of Parliament to legally cover this increasing direct control over the colonies and ignoring the ensuing backlash. The crux of the problem wasn't taxation, but rather that the Crown was using the Colonies as a back door attempt to circumvent the restrictions that were imposed upon it by Parliament since the Restoration. If Parliament had been more forceful in slapping down the King through legislation or had established a self-governing Dominion for the Colonies, independence would have been averted. But Parliament dithered, and the Colonists chose independence because they judged it had failed to defend its perogatives.
@@petergray2712 I would hesitate to say George the III was largely to blame as I would view the beginnings of the core disagreements began prior him even ascending to the monarchy. Sadly I can't find my favorite book on the topic, but to cite Gary B. Nash for specific incidents, you often will see small scale conflict regarding autonomy and oversight between those who support the Colonial government as the primary administrative body as oppossed to London. People tend to underestimate the long period of time the Colonies were effectively independent in much of their administration. Events such as the jailbreak in 1745 in Newark weren't unknown. At the same time as incidents such as these, you had colonial governments (Afraid I can't give specific citations as this is the area covered in the book I can't find) continuously negotiating regarding taxes and the rights that the colonial governments had prior to George III as well. A lot of the times there would be "Temporary" compromises where the colony asserted the right that they themselves decided their own taxes but would still raise a sum of money was requested whilst the "British" (For lack of a better term, even if it isn't exactly accurate in this context) government would accept the funds but still insist that they themselves are the ones who had the ultimate right to dictate taxes. Of course the George III Monarchy failed in preventing the conflict, but I honestly suspect that this would have eventually became a source of conflict regardless of whom was in control of Parliament and on the throne. I think only really strong alterations of history like someone (If not the man himself) like Charles James Fox becoming firmly in control of Parliament could've resolved the issue without it coming to violence. You just can't have a key issue of sovereignty go on for decades without it eventually blowing up, therefore I tend to view George III as more merely the individual whom was holding the bag at the time. Edit: In retrospect too I think the extreme anti-militarism the colonies had at the time too also is understated. British Soldiers culturally were seen as a major threat to democracy (A cultural belief descended from the Glorious Revolution if I recall correctly, but I may be wrong on that.), whilst such strong cultural views were no longer as present around Parliament. This contributes to different severe perceptions where American Colonists viewed their sovereignty was being violated in order to finance soldiers (Inherent threats to democracy) in their territory whom could only exist to threaten them, whilst in parliament the view was Parliament exercising it's own sovereignty to levy a reasonable level of taxes to help pay for the soldiers stationed in the colonies for the purpose of combating potential foreign foes. Though I admit I am shakier on this as it's been a while since I read the material.
The colonists were in the wrong though. They paid much lower taxes than mainland Britain, never even tried to get representation instead just using the call to lower those taxes even more, and all that after the whole point of the 7 years war was to defend them from the French, to which they barely contributed financially. Also, the main point for many of the American elites at the time was actually land speculation in the Ohio valley meaning "oh no, parliament doesn't let us genocide even more natives for westward expansion in that land we just conquered in the war we didn't help pay for"
Funfact:! The british soldiers who fired on the crowd during the boston massacre were put on trial for murder. If found guilty, they would be hanged. The attorney who defended the soldiers was none other than founding father and future president, John Adams. Of the 8 soldiers on trial, 6 were acquitted and the other 2 were found guilty, but of the lesser crime of manslaughter. John Adams used a legal maneuver called " benefit of the clergy", which means since the 2 soldiers were first time offenders, their punishment was only to have their thumb branded.
John Adams most importantly stated some rational arguments, namely that throwing stones at sentries and yelling "kill them" ....well it can get you killed
At least he legitimately tried. And he clearly knew he was in over his head and tried repeatedly to resign. A different king or more spine would have served him extremely well. Or shorter distances for faster communication. Oh well, at least we got a fancy new country out of it!
From my understanding the reason why representation was not considered because, primarily, the British didn’t consider it. Once that die was cast the colonists basically said “if telling them what we want didn’t work, then what leads us to believe it will work next time.”
Plus, British parliamentary representation at the time was _extremely_ unbalanced, since there'd never been any systematic redistricting as populations (both landowning and not) had changed over the centuries. In particular, you had: - "normal" rural districts, electing their own MPs - "normal" cities and towns that _were_ their own parliamentary boroughs, electing their own MPs - recently-grown cities and towns like Manchester that were still lumped in with surrounding rural districts, and wanted their own MPs to match the more established towns of similar population - and notorious "rotten boroughs"/"pocket boroughs" that elected their own MPs representing _very few_ people. Often these were _former_ cities or towns, once-important places that, in their prime, had made some sense to be their own districts. But by the 1700s, they'd become relative nowheres whose MPs were effectively in the pocket of their _one_ big landowner.* Granting representation to the colonies risked opening up more general calls for parliamentary reform, which would hurt those in power who benefited from the existing system. ...Which those in power held out against, until the threat of possible revolution led to _actual_ reforms in the 1830s. * The two most notorious were: - *Old Sarum,* a town on a defensive hill in the 1100s, which was completely abandoned by the 1500s after a new town (modern Salisbury) was founded next to the nearby river around 1220. Effectively, the town moved a couple miles. But the old town didn't exactly die overnight, and it managed to get its own MPs in 1295 despite its evident decline. - *Dunwich,* a major port town before 1300, nearly as big as then-contemporary London, that had declined to a small village by 1400. Basically, the River Dunwich changed course away from the town as the harbor silted up. On top of that, multiple major storms between 1286 and 1362 destroyed most of the old town. And without the river mouth there, coastal currents started severely eroding that part of the coast, making even the _ruins_ fall into the sea by the early 1900s. (The only surviving medieval ruins are an old priory and hospital that had been well _inland_ of the old town.)
People always talk about how Britain got into debt getting all this French land, but forget that the French and Indian War was an extension of the Seven Year's War, a global war between European powers ultimately fought by Britain to stiff France by swooping in to aide Prussia. We got dragged into a silly European war, had horrific frontier warfare with Indian raids driven on by both sides against homesteads and trading posts, and all in all... had ourselves put into a proxy war for the sake of Britain grabbing up more islands abroad. So no, we don't care to pay for that.
Jack, i *always* watch your ad reads bcuz theyre so well done; and still i was floored when i realised youd so smoothly transitioned into that ad read that i was a ways in before even realisin it was an ad read xD
You call Lord North incompetent and one of the worst Prime Ministers, though I tend to disagree. Firstly, the man held office for 12 years straight, making him the sixth longest prime minister in office. Furthermore, I'm surprised you avoided mentioning anything else in his career outside of American Independence, considering he managed the Falklands War, which was a decisive British victory, that would have gone down in history unless a mediocre successor to the office stole his thunder 300 years later, though they at least didn't steal his length of tenure. It's also somewhat dishonest to blame the problem on solely North. He didn't bring the heavy taxes (that was done 3 years before he took office), he wasn't leading the direct battle, he wasn't even the sole man in charge of the war effort in parliament (see the inventor of the sandwich for that failure) and it was a battle an ocean away. People (or; Americans) fail to realise just how much red tape is in the UK government, if North wanted to perform anything (e.g. a new strategy or a treaty) he would have to consult the cabinet, parliament, king or all of the above.
Gotta point out that the colonies did pay taxes before, the thing is the taxes were collected by colonial governments and sent to London. What happened here is that the parliament started taxing colonists directly. Worse taxes like the Stamp Act had to be paid in British Pounds before you could buy a house, get married, bury a family member, send a letter, or even buy a deck of playing cards. The colonists didn't have British pounds, and most of the colonies had their own money at the time but you couldn't pay the tax in local money. For my fellow Americans, this would be like having to get physical Yaun notes to pay sales taxes and they've announced that banks are now only open on Monday 9 to 12pm. Now that act was repealed but it left a lot of lingering bad feelings. Given that it's no wonder the colonists were a little cranky when the ships pulled into Boston.
@@notthefbi7015Part of the reason why King George wanted to keep Lord North was because of how reliable he was. He was someone with good connections to most MPs and was competent when solving the debt (until the war).
@@shivill2236 The actual 'answer' would've been to allow him to become a deputy prime minister in charge of home affairs and to elevate someone else to prime minister edit: nevermind, it would've been near impossible given that no deputies had existed until 1942
@1882osr To be fair, there have been instances around this period where there was a minister that pretty much acted as a deputy Prime Minister. Pitt, the Elder only agreed to give his support to the Duke of Newcastle's government on the condition that he was allowed to micromanage the Seven Years War. His entrance into the administration highlighted a dramatic shift in Britain's overall performance and resulted in Britain winning. Bonus fun fact: Pitt the Elder actually met with Benjamin Franklin to talk about the colonies in Parliament before the war happened, and throughout the revolution, he constantly predicted the Americans' actions with a surprisingly high accuracy.
10:08 I can't believe you missed the opportunity to say "things were going south". I thought "Jack was surely keeping this pun for a later point in the video" but it never came 😢
Another aspect of the BEIC tea versus Dutch tea was that North used it as an excuse to reinforce the pretty much ignored navigation acts which cut down on smuggling and led to a defacto (in the eyes of the colonists) monopoly for a British company on selling them British tea. Not to mention most Americans already involved themselves with smuggling or subverting the navigation acts and their associated taxes so beyond being petty with the tea tax it’s also a sneaky way for the British to enforce that tea money gets back to them by hook or by crook
It was a bit more complicated. There had been a system where the king would tell the colonial governors he wanted X money, the governors would tell each colonial legislature they need to raise X money, then the colonists would pass the appropriate taxes and then send back the money. King George III ended this system and had Parliament directly pass taxes on the colonists, often ones way more onerous than what the colonists would have passed themselves if told to raise X amount of money. Add in England cracking down on the colonists trading with other European countries which the colonists used to do freely in order to get the best prices, and the colonists were pissed. Basically, the colonists saw themselves as crown possessions ruled directly by the king and not subject to parliament. King George trying to bring the colonists under parliamentary rule and also enforce mercantilist economic policies is what caused the revolution.
Excellently put. IIRC as late as ‘73-‘74 even men like Thomas Jefferson were still holding out hope that the king would intervene on the colonies’ behalf and assert that America was subject only to the king, not parliament. What finally sent the Americans over the edge was the king’s decision to stick by parliament and declare that they were indeed the supreme legislature of the empire.
@@Johnsmith99663 Exactly. The American Colonies had what amounted to home rule and wanted to keep it. The colonists had watched what happened to Scotland and Ireland as they were brought more directly under the thumb of the English parliament and wanted none of it. Many of their ancestors had come to the colonies to gain land and stop being under the direct control of parliament.
That might have been general debt (interest and principal) not just principal. I would assume nowadays any government spending more than 25% of the buget on interest alone would probably go bankrupt long before reaching 50% on since people would see that they have no shot on paying the principal on old debts.
I’m going to be annoying, but in the UK Parliament the prime minister sits on the right of the chair, and the Leader of the Opposition sits on the left (basically flipped the wrong way round.
There's another video where he had King James meeting with the House of Commons in person even though it was against tradition for the King to do so, lampshade left hanging.
Generally the reason why the Americans don’t “try to solve the representation issue” was because of the colonial charters and their history of being locally controlled. Under salutory neglect (the state of the colonies for over 70 years in some cases) laws were locally made, assemblies locally sourced, taxes organized locally and the British really didn’t bother to control the colonies all that much. Theirs so much faith in these independent colonial units in fact that it becomes difficult for “America” to become a concept of one nation for a long time they remain fiercely loyal to their state governments late into the war and beyond this is seen in the articles of confederation. So very simply representation in parliament Wasnt the issue so much as representation for what they saw as their own governments that had been functioning largely without the British for nearly 100+ years in some cases (156 years for Boston’s at the longest)
I never heard ANY teacher, talk like this in ALL my years in school AND college. Yes, I did take a history classes, one which solely focus on the American Revolution. I thank you for finally telling the REAL story about the American Revolution. Since elementary school, I had this nagging feeling that the history of American revolution, wasn't so back and white. Now I can die happy. No joke.
Wow that was the best transition I've ever seen. Litterally was relevant to the video and explained the logic behind the video all while promoting the sponsor. Brilliant.
Jack Rackham, You should do an episode on Ned Kelly the famous Australian outlaw. Not only did he and his crew commit several 1800's Ocean's-11 style heists and bank robberies, but he built himself this nearly invincible iron armor out of scraps from farm equipment in a make-shift bush forge like a real life version of Iron Man making his first armor set "OUT OF SCRAPS! IN A CAVE!"
Ah yeah I remember that, ultimately became a lesson in where you are protected is as valuable as how thick you armor is, as once the initial shock of there armor effectiveness wore off lawmen shot them in the arms and legs and turned those suits of armor into metal coffins.
[Not name dropping Guadalupe in the mention of the Caribbean] Revolutionary historians: "Somebody bring me the extra sturdy keyboard and two bottles of wine, I will not stand for this personal insult!"
I don’t know what I’m more impressed with, Jack’s skills in various accents, even different British accents, or how well informed the video was in a time period. Everyone ALWAYS makes a big deal with “No taxation with no representation” and the Boston Tea Party with zero context that the taxes they originally imposed made Americans go to the alternative Dutch tea to then play games with the colonies… That could have been avoided if there was someone in parliament to represent the colonies. And yet the Brits try to convince themselves learning about the whole picture of the American Revolution War doesn’t affect them, as they repeated the same mistake OVER, and OVER, and OVER again.
7:30. By my knowledge the reason the colonies didn’t try to get representation in Great Britain’s parliament is the colonists somewhat already had representation, in the colonial legislatures of each colony. Meanwhile the governors were appointed from Great Britain, but fun fact, the legislatures controlled the governor’s salary most of the time, meaning the legislatures had a rather good countermeasure against them. The colonial legislatures for the most part instituted direct taxes, meanwhile the Empires legislature had, until right before the revolutionary war, instituted tariffs. No taxation without representation was less a cry for representation in parliament, and more for keeping power in the hands of their local elected governments. As I’ve seen a couple others say, the tax on tea was to used in part to pay the governors salary so they could do what Britain wanted without risking financial ruination. This threatened the colonial governments power, and things went downhill from there.
I pride myself on smelling when an ad is coming on with my finger on the FFW but you got me hook line and sinker with that one! ..I still FFW'd it, but, you know.. Kudos.
The colonists were not, in fact, able to expand towards the Mississippi. Due to frequent battles with Pontiac and his allies, the British signed the royal proclamation of 1763 with the ottawas and several other native confederations, which restricted settlement west of the Appalachian mountains.
The proclamation line of 1763 was instituted after Pontiac's Rebellion and limited colonial expansion to the Appalachian ridge. This is arguably one of the causes of the Revolution.
I also heard that the tea was moldy/had been improperly stored so it wasn’t in good condition and no one wanted it back in England/Britain so they were trying to force the colonists to buy it.
It's funny how such an unpopular guy was, if anything, one of the most self aware prime ministers of all time. He kept telling his boss he can't do it, he's not cut out for it, he'll fail miserably, he's going to hate him. And in a shocking display of loyalty, George just stands by his friend until the bitter end. If ever such a wholesome tale of honesty and loyalty could turn so dark, it's this.
One of the biggest factors most people fail to realize is that the colonies weren't asking to just pay less taxes. They just wanted a representative in the Parliament. Had they just given them a seat at the table, they probably would have stayed loyal to England. Instead, they were ignored and taxed even more.
The Proclamation of 1763 after the French and Indian War prevented the English colonies in America from expanding westard towards the Mississippi River. This mandate from the Parliament was designed to prevent conflict with native tribes and thusly avoiding another expensive war in the New World
Imagine if America had simply gotten representation and the other colonies as well and then today Canada, the American colonies, Australia, New Zealand are all still ruled by the UK Parliament where they have representation
Australia never fought for independence but basically forced to. So US independence was going to happen one way or another, ttoghly likely would be a much smaller country.
King George managed to cling to the thrones thanks to the competency of his ministers. They worked hard to ensure that if he were to lose it fully, he would be replaced by his son.
@occam7382 Eh... kinda. The real people in charge at that moment would actually have been the Prime Minister. Pitt, the Younger and Spencer Perceval, were both able to get what they wanted from the regency crisis. For those brief moments, they were the actual tip of the government.
Go to piavpn.com/HistoryAbridged to get 83% off Private
Internet Access with 4 months free!
Hello Jack! Huge fan
@@danielsantiagourtado3430 Bonjour!
1:20 I see you there Westmoreland. Doin't think you can sneak that by me Jackie-boy.
The crown only wanted to tax the yanks on tea & limited luxury goods.
They were so daft that they chose to pay vastly more tax under their own leadership that they got just as little say with a copy of the English bills of rights shortened called the USA constitution.
Seems like a lot of effort on the USA's part for nothing. The Canuck's just asked politely for self dominion in a letter instead of making demands!
Yanks never had any tact or reason & this is why 0,2 million yanks passed for no reason.
Even Brits wrote of what a pointless war it was!
Mind doesn't work for USA indoctrination called education which it is no such thing.
Still Britain's parliament being a Sh!t show at the time didn't help matters with domestic affa8irs unstable to say the least.
Thanks for putting this video out Jack. It was just what the doctor ordered after a terribly annoying day at work. Please keep up the good work.
One reason the tea tax was so controversial is because part of its purpose was to pay the salaries of colonial governors who had previously been paid by local taxes. This was a scheme to make governors dependent on the British government directly, so in that sense it was a direct challenge to the autonomy of the colonies.
This. It wasn’t about cutting taxes, it was about who passed those taxes. The system that had been in place since Walpole was PM had the colonists passing the taxes themselves and then sending the requested money back to the king. In essence, the American colonists viewed themselves as having a similar legal standing to the Channel Islands. They were directly under the crown and not subject to parliament. The issue comes from Lord North and George III letting parliament govern the colonies instead of the crown.
It also gave the East India Company a monopoly on Tea. They were selling the Colonists tea which they couldn't sell in Europe. It was undeniable.
What autonomy? The colonies were governed from Britain.
@@diegoflores9237 Not true! In practical terms the colonies were governed by their respective general assemblies, who raised their own taxes. The governor's were generally appointed by the crown, but in the late colonial period they were generally at the mercy of the legislatures because they were responsible for paying the governor's salary, similar to how the English Crown had limited power because only parliament could levy taxes.
Because the tea tax was to remove this power from the legislature, this would give governors, and therefore the crown, more de facto power to act against the legislature.
@ While they colonies were governed by Britain, Britain had been fairly hands off regarding the colonies. They generally had their own internal legislatures that could counterbalance the governors appointed by the king. The colonies answered to the king. Parliament had little to do with them until after the Seven Years War, when George III and Lord North tried to bring them under the control of parliament and reduce the power of the colonial legislatures.
“How do you lose a colony?”
“You forget to cherish them”
Their daddy gave them a name and then he walked away.
Britain at the time: we still have the Caribbean right? well all good (also what is happening in India?)
@@prettypic444 or didn't allow them to have beef with actual native Americans
Just like how the Etruscans treated the Romans.
I got that reference!
The fact Brits and france would take themselves down if it meant the other would go down too is truly a piece of art
Art imitates life it seems
Well, that may be… But we only have modern evidence of it working with the French trying to take the Brits down.Britain won the 7 years War and could have taken the Caribbean colonies also if they Wanted. But in typical Parliamentary Democratic style Parliament by majority allowed France to keep the Caribbean which was there most productive colony.The reason was to avoid a revenge attack by France… As if France was going to be okay with losing its other colonies LOL!. France only managed catch up ENOUGH with the naval hardware to be able to support the colonists in the war of independence because it had this colony in which to extract value.
That single action may be the worst decision in history, because the colonists would have lost without French and Spanish support and the Brits had the Industrial Revolution only decades later, which could have led to a Rome like longevity of dominance for the British, because undoubtedly they would have been covert about industrial practices in such a timeline where they had suppressed a rebellion, unlike our timeline where they sold the skills and techniques necessary for industrial practice to the highest bidders in the early to mid 19th century
They have this type of rivalry but they also fought together during the WWS
@@SleepyjoeOG”no one gets to kill the hated enemy EXCEPT ME”
It's the greatest rivalry in European history
"The American settlers were free to expand as far west as the Mississippi river, whether there be Native Americans there or not." Ironically, this was another major source of tension between the Crown and the colonists. After some rather bloody hostilities between the natives and the settlers, London decided to forbid any further settler expansion west of the Appalachian mountains (the Proclamation Line of 1763). American colonists duly ignored this, and it was a source of considerable friction between the two sides.
Scotch Irish causing more troubles for the English crown as usual 😅
@@stevencooper4422As God f*cking intended XD
Yes and denying the colonists their God given rights to genocide is in the Declaration of Independence in the Grievances section.
Sounds like Israhell from 1948 onwards.
@@OsirisLord the main reason they were upset is because the whole reason the seven years war was fought, was over Ohio and the French territory west of the Appalachian mountains. The colonists were promised that land after the war, after the war, Britain went back on their promise the British were still genociding natives in many of their colonies. They just didn’t want the Americans to expand, and this led to a lot of tension when they started taxing them for the war. Well, not giving them any of the gains that the Americans had been promised.
I’ll be honest, when I saw the title I was thinking “huh I wonder who it could be, James Buchanan? Nah that wouldn’t make sense” then I saw it was revolutionary war “oh maybe it’s Benedict Arnold” then I read the description “who the hell is Lord North?”
*The guy that drank tea*
I have always found the way the American Revolution is taught in American schools was shit. The constitutional monarch is the tyrant but not the Prime Minister whose Parliament passed the taxes?
I was thinking “that doesn’t look like George III” >_>
@@DyknownYeah, as an American we don’t really learn a whole lot about the actual British politics during the Revolutionary War, it feels very much like we just imagine King George as fucking Sauron.
@@InquisitorThomas That was a deliberate propaganda effort to avoid offending Parliament, mindful of the need to eventually negotiate with them for a peace treaty.
We should include North as one of the Founding Fathers
They made the colonies independent, they didn't found them.
The more i read about the american revolution the more i realize the nation was built on hundreds of myths. The brits were much fairer to them than any other colonies and only taxed them to pay debts acrued defending them. They act like britain was evil and oppresive to them but it absolutely wasnt. Then of course the americans would go on to tax the hell out of many peoples without even acknowledging their humanity let alone offer them representation
@@pfvkktmnhyTR9237 Jefferson and Adams?
@@pfvkktmnhyTR9237 Bro really left out James Madison, the fucking author of the constitution 💀
@@jameskpolkastronomyhistory5984Benjamin Franklin was cool as well.
The problem with repersentation was that the USA feared becoming like Ireland, and the UK feared becoming a US Vassal ala early Norman-French rule.
But imagine how based that would be?
À la*
@@oaoO8Y98Tronald reagen was president before Canada became free
Yeah... at that point the colonies going their separate ways seems like the best idea.
The irony is that the US took its independence and the UK still ended up becoming a vassal of the US eventually
Even though I’m wholly on #TeamAmerica, I feel bad for Lord North. Bless his heart, he tried. He failed miserably, but he tried.
Gotta respect a dude who's in over his head
I am glad you lot got independence but one can't help but wonder what would've happened if he'd been allowed to resign and we'd had a PM who actually new how to lead a war/ lead negotiations
Telling someone bless their heart is a major insult
@@JacksonHitchcock I was being sarcastic, dude.
@isaac3140 I mean he knew war wasn't his thing and tried the responsible thing of passing on his title to someone who could actually do war but wasn't allowed to
Imagine finding America and then losing it.
America is a massive country, how do you lose it?
At that time the United States was much smaller than it is today.
To be fair some of those old couches were BIG, so check around the cushions
@@Atlas3060 XD
The more i read about the american revolution the more i realize the nation was built on hundreds of myths. The brits were much fairer to them than any other colonies and only taxed them to pay debts acrued defending them. They act like britain was evil and oppresive to them but it absolutely wasnt. Then of course the americans would go on to tax the hell out of many peoples without even acknowledging their humanity let alone offer them representation
You forget to cherish her.
4:20 "Tabling" means the complete opposite thing to Americans from what it does to the British. If something is tabled in parliament, that means it's being brought to the floor for discussion.
That actually makes a lot more sense, honestly.
Colonial representatives DID ask for representation in parliament. Many times and over several years, both as a collective and as individual colonies. British parliament members also brought the matter up and even pointed out instances in which groups petitioned parliament for representation and were successful. That’s the wild part of it all. Both sides had people asking to just give the American Colonies representation, yet it somehow went nowhere.
Fun Fact: At the Boston Tea Party Museum they actually have a chest of tea from the Tea Party and some of the actual tea. 🤩
They got it out of the harbor? Wow!
@@ElizabethMcCormick-s2n A young colonist, John Robinson found an intact crate on the shore after the "Tea Party." His family kept it as a keepsake of the event until it was acquired by the museum previously mentioned. If there's one thing Bostonians know how to capitalize on, it's their role in kicking off the Revolutionary War.
Cool!
OK but I want to DRINK the tea tho. How can I be fully educated on our history if I cannot DRINK the famous tea. I don't care how much you have to dilute it.i don't care if it's 25.00 dollars a glass.
I want to drink the tea
@@physetermacrocephalus2209 Uncle Iroh would be Proud!
The twelve other colonies, "These new tax acts are horrible!"
Rhode Island, "Wait, you actually pay for stuff?"
People living in Britain, "Dafuq you guys complaining about, that's half of what we pay!"
Part of the reason Parliament never gave America any seats, was that it would trigger a larger question of "well now the other colonies want seats". Parliament knew that if they started giving the other colonies representatives they could form a powerful voting bloc, effectively allowing the colonies to rule over the home islands which was the last thing the british empire wanted.
Very true, though I'm not certain the American Colonies considered that since it appears that they, or at least the ones in charge, didn't actually want representation since they feared that the rest of Parliament would just outvote their representatives who might not even vote in favor of them after spending time in London.
@@Lorekeeper72 I would disagree the feeling in the beginning was that since they (the people of the american colonies) are englishmen the magna carta grants them the right of representation, which is correct and part of the reason parliament didn't want to comply since the other colonies would then need representatives. also the olive branch petition and the 1774 petition to the king which jack writes off in this video, states that while the colonies felt that parliament was overstepping their powers they still believed they were loyal subjects of the king. Again the general belief at the start was for a push for a seat in parliament it was only after fighting started that the fringe belief of full independence became mainline.
@@oaoO8Y98T i didnt mention canada
If only there were some guys around who knew how to structure a government that could balance states of differing size and power so that each one can be properly represented, while also not being able to deprive each other of rights.
They didn't want to give them a vote since the whole economic system was forcing manufactured products on the colonies and they knew the colonies wouldn't go along with that if they had a vote.
It's why they rejected federalizing the British empire later on India could not be allowed to industrialize
America owes him a lot for his lack of talent😂😂😂😂
Yeah America should have sent him a fruit basket and said "Thanks for botching it up so much, we appreciate you!" At the very least the poor guy would have been praised by *someone* .
He wasn't talentless, just dealing with the greatest crybabies in history
He had the wrong talents for the wrong time. He tried too hard to compromise on everything, rather than carefully pick and choose what to compromise on based on an understanding of what everyone wanted.
@@chideraalexanderdex547sounds talentless to me, but I guess he's alright compared to most other British prime ministers, especially recently
@@isaac3140 how is he talentless? All his measures were reasonable and made sense. The Americans just wanted to whine over EVERYTHING and used the sentiment of taxation without representation as a boldfaced lie to avoid paying their fairshare
I love that the French PM is literally brushing the King's hair. Imagine Starmer doing that with Charles today lol
I can imagine it now.🤣
It's even funnier if you think about someone brushing his son, Billy's hair. Or lack thereof.
0:58 wasn't there a whole thing where the lands west of the Appalachians were considered native reservation and the settlers weren't allowed there?
That was a MAJOR cause of the war.
By the 1774 or so, they had started settling there anyway. For example, Kentucky's oldest European settlements date back to that year.
Yeah. It was called the Royal Proclamation Line of 1763.
Yes and no. Colonies could and did renegotiate borders with the native tribes, so the Proclamation Line of 1763 that we all see in maps of the time was actually no longer the border by 1775. But the principle remained that they didn't _want_ to have to negotiate with the tribes on an equal footing.
This was both a major cause of the war, and the primary reason Canada (what was then Quebec) didn't join the rebellion, because they had been given all the territory around the Great lakes north of the Ohio river, and not the 13 Colonies.
Of course, the whole reason they were making interest payments was the whole south sea bubble. So, really...it was Walpole.
Walpole!
The minute Jack said the word "lottery" I said "OH NO" so loudly my husband asked what was wrong.
ah the chain of dominos just keeps a toppling
Everything comes back to Harley and Walpole, the two Roberts :(
I've always said, even before Hamilton, that George III gets blamed for the war because he was the King.
But by this point in history, it was Parliament, not the crown, who held that kind of power.
It was far more the fault of Lord North and Viscount Sackville, in their refusal to compromise or even consider the colonial interests.
George III was extremely sympathetic to the colonies at first, calling the taxes basically an unjust tyranny against a people who had no representation.
George III was largely to blame. He was a young monarch that was enthralled at this point with the idea of being an absolute monarch like his continental counterparts, but even the king's faction in Parliament (the Tories) proved resistant to the idea of surrendering their hard won power to an all powerful sovereign. This denial led George to find other avenues to obtain that power, and the Privy Council (which oversaw Britain's colonies) became the outlet for his ambition. The Crown used Lord Bute and Lord North's (the king's personal friends) control of Parliament to legally cover this increasing direct control over the colonies and ignoring the ensuing backlash.
The crux of the problem wasn't taxation, but rather that the Crown was using the Colonies as a back door attempt to circumvent the restrictions that were imposed upon it by Parliament since the Restoration. If Parliament had been more forceful in slapping down the King through legislation or had established a self-governing Dominion for the Colonies, independence would have been averted. But Parliament dithered, and the Colonists chose independence because they judged it had failed to defend its perogatives.
The British could have played the long game and subverted the colonies by supporting loyalists to be the representatives.
@@petergray2712 I would hesitate to say George the III was largely to blame as I would view the beginnings of the core disagreements began prior him even ascending to the monarchy. Sadly I can't find my favorite book on the topic, but to cite Gary B. Nash for specific incidents, you often will see small scale conflict regarding autonomy and oversight between those who support the Colonial government as the primary administrative body as oppossed to London. People tend to underestimate the long period of time the Colonies were effectively independent in much of their administration. Events such as the jailbreak in 1745 in Newark weren't unknown. At the same time as incidents such as these, you had colonial governments (Afraid I can't give specific citations as this is the area covered in the book I can't find) continuously negotiating regarding taxes and the rights that the colonial governments had prior to George III as well. A lot of the times there would be "Temporary" compromises where the colony asserted the right that they themselves decided their own taxes but would still raise a sum of money was requested whilst the "British" (For lack of a better term, even if it isn't exactly accurate in this context) government would accept the funds but still insist that they themselves are the ones who had the ultimate right to dictate taxes.
Of course the George III Monarchy failed in preventing the conflict, but I honestly suspect that this would have eventually became a source of conflict regardless of whom was in control of Parliament and on the throne. I think only really strong alterations of history like someone (If not the man himself) like Charles James Fox becoming firmly in control of Parliament could've resolved the issue without it coming to violence. You just can't have a key issue of sovereignty go on for decades without it eventually blowing up, therefore I tend to view George III as more merely the individual whom was holding the bag at the time.
Edit:
In retrospect too I think the extreme anti-militarism the colonies had at the time too also is understated. British Soldiers culturally were seen as a major threat to democracy (A cultural belief descended from the Glorious Revolution if I recall correctly, but I may be wrong on that.), whilst such strong cultural views were no longer as present around Parliament. This contributes to different severe perceptions where American Colonists viewed their sovereignty was being violated in order to finance soldiers (Inherent threats to democracy) in their territory whom could only exist to threaten them, whilst in parliament the view was Parliament exercising it's own sovereignty to levy a reasonable level of taxes to help pay for the soldiers stationed in the colonies for the purpose of combating potential foreign foes. Though I admit I am shakier on this as it's been a while since I read the material.
The colonists were in the wrong though. They paid much lower taxes than mainland Britain, never even tried to get representation instead just using the call to lower those taxes even more, and all that after the whole point of the 7 years war was to defend them from the French, to which they barely contributed financially. Also, the main point for many of the American elites at the time was actually land speculation in the Ohio valley meaning "oh no, parliament doesn't let us genocide even more natives for westward expansion in that land we just conquered in the war we didn't help pay for"
@@maximilianbeyer5642 Citations for any of that?
Funfact:! The british soldiers who fired on the crowd during the boston massacre were put on trial for murder. If found guilty, they would be hanged. The attorney who defended the soldiers was none other than founding father and future president, John Adams. Of the 8 soldiers on trial, 6 were acquitted and the other 2 were found guilty, but of the lesser crime of manslaughter. John Adams used a legal maneuver called " benefit of the clergy", which means since the 2 soldiers were first time offenders, their punishment was only to have their thumb branded.
John Adams most importantly stated some rational arguments, namely that throwing stones at sentries and yelling "kill them" ....well it can get you killed
10:07
"Things were not going North's way"
So you could say...they were going south? XD
I honestly feel sad for the man.
He knew his limitations and asked to get replaced. But he was forced to stay on when he was already clearly struggling in the water.
Yeah I laughed at the video but halfway through I just felt bad for him.
By the end of his life, he became blind and sickly; constantly apologetic over his role in the American war of independence.
@@shivill2236
Oh my that sounds awful
Tbo this didn't make North look bad, it makes the Prime minister appointment look like an awful bureaucratic decision. lol
At least he legitimately tried. And he clearly knew he was in over his head and tried repeatedly to resign.
A different king or more spine would have served him extremely well. Or shorter distances for faster communication.
Oh well, at least we got a fancy new country out of it!
Well the worst of all was the parliament of them, but North was really trying & aware he was not fit for it.
Great work with the segway to commercial. Top marks.
Seriously, smooth as melted butter.
Just an FYI, it's segue.
@@atimholt I knew it was wrong when I wrote it but I was too burnt to remember why. Thanks.
@@atimholt It *was* segue; but we the ppl can make it segway!
@@SylviaRustyFae Changing it to “segway” gives in to cringy corporate pressure from a failed product. We don't want it to become “segway”.
You monster how DARE you have such a smooth transition into a Private Internet Access commercial ...bravo
12:50 wow. the most relatable man in history.
"Just because you pay for a service doesn't mean you get to use it." is quite a statement make
From my understanding the reason why representation was not considered because, primarily, the British didn’t consider it. Once that die was cast the colonists basically said “if telling them what we want didn’t work, then what leads us to believe it will work next time.”
Plus, British parliamentary representation at the time was _extremely_ unbalanced, since there'd never been any systematic redistricting as populations (both landowning and not) had changed over the centuries. In particular, you had:
- "normal" rural districts, electing their own MPs
- "normal" cities and towns that _were_ their own parliamentary boroughs, electing their own MPs
- recently-grown cities and towns like Manchester that were still lumped in with surrounding rural districts, and wanted their own MPs to match the more established towns of similar population
- and notorious "rotten boroughs"/"pocket boroughs" that elected their own MPs representing _very few_ people. Often these were _former_ cities or towns, once-important places that, in their prime, had made some sense to be their own districts. But by the 1700s, they'd become relative nowheres whose MPs were effectively in the pocket of their _one_ big landowner.*
Granting representation to the colonies risked opening up more general calls for parliamentary reform, which would hurt those in power who benefited from the existing system. ...Which those in power held out against, until the threat of possible revolution led to _actual_ reforms in the 1830s.
* The two most notorious were:
- *Old Sarum,* a town on a defensive hill in the 1100s, which was completely abandoned by the 1500s after a new town (modern Salisbury) was founded next to the nearby river around 1220. Effectively, the town moved a couple miles. But the old town didn't exactly die overnight, and it managed to get its own MPs in 1295 despite its evident decline.
- *Dunwich,* a major port town before 1300, nearly as big as then-contemporary London, that had declined to a small village by 1400. Basically, the River Dunwich changed course away from the town as the harbor silted up. On top of that, multiple major storms between 1286 and 1362 destroyed most of the old town. And without the river mouth there, coastal currents started severely eroding that part of the coast, making even the _ruins_ fall into the sea by the early 1900s. (The only surviving medieval ruins are an old priory and hospital that had been well _inland_ of the old town.)
Return of Jack's cinematic universe with the King of France sticking it to the British again!
People always talk about how Britain got into debt getting all this French land, but forget that the French and Indian War was an extension of the Seven Year's War, a global war between European powers ultimately fought by Britain to stiff France by swooping in to aide Prussia. We got dragged into a silly European war, had horrific frontier warfare with Indian raids driven on by both sides against homesteads and trading posts, and all in all... had ourselves put into a proxy war for the sake of Britain grabbing up more islands abroad. So no, we don't care to pay for that.
Ah yes, the anti-Columbus
Hello jack! Love your content! You're amazing! Suggestion: Charles XIV of sweden. The french marshal who became king 🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪
Jack, i *always* watch your ad reads bcuz theyre so well done; and still i was floored when i realised youd so smoothly transitioned into that ad read that i was a ways in before even realisin it was an ad read xD
You call Lord North incompetent and one of the worst Prime Ministers, though I tend to disagree. Firstly, the man held office for 12 years straight, making him the sixth longest prime minister in office.
Furthermore, I'm surprised you avoided mentioning anything else in his career outside of American Independence, considering he managed the Falklands War, which was a decisive British victory, that would have gone down in history unless a mediocre successor to the office stole his thunder 300 years later, though they at least didn't steal his length of tenure.
It's also somewhat dishonest to blame the problem on solely North. He didn't bring the heavy taxes (that was done 3 years before he took office), he wasn't leading the direct battle, he wasn't even the sole man in charge of the war effort in parliament (see the inventor of the sandwich for that failure) and it was a battle an ocean away.
People (or; Americans) fail to realise just how much red tape is in the UK government, if North wanted to perform anything (e.g. a new strategy or a treaty) he would have to consult the cabinet, parliament, king or all of the above.
Bro the video was about how he lost America
What do you mean he won the Falkland war? That war was in the 70’s of the 1700’s.
I like the rebrand, keep doing what your doing :)
The VPN segment was masterfully smooth - I am at a loss for words.
0:29 midnight the stars and you referenced, let’s go!
Gotta point out that the colonies did pay taxes before, the thing is the taxes were collected by colonial governments and sent to London. What happened here is that the parliament started taxing colonists directly. Worse taxes like the Stamp Act had to be paid in British Pounds before you could buy a house, get married, bury a family member, send a letter, or even buy a deck of playing cards. The colonists didn't have British pounds, and most of the colonies had their own money at the time but you couldn't pay the tax in local money. For my fellow Americans, this would be like having to get physical Yaun notes to pay sales taxes and they've announced that banks are now only open on Monday 9 to 12pm. Now that act was repealed but it left a lot of lingering bad feelings.
Given that it's no wonder the colonists were a little cranky when the ships pulled into Boston.
I feel bad for lord North, all things considered
Yeah imagine understanding you are not the guy for the job and trying to resign so someone more competent could do it and your just told nah man
@@notthefbi7015Part of the reason why King George wanted to keep Lord North was because of how reliable he was. He was someone with good connections to most MPs and was competent when solving the debt (until the war).
@@shivill2236 The actual 'answer' would've been to allow him to become a deputy prime minister in charge of home affairs and to elevate someone else to prime minister
edit: nevermind, it would've been near impossible given that no deputies had existed until 1942
@1882osr To be fair, there have been instances around this period where there was a minister that pretty much acted as a deputy Prime Minister. Pitt, the Elder only agreed to give his support to the Duke of Newcastle's government on the condition that he was allowed to micromanage the Seven Years War.
His entrance into the administration highlighted a dramatic shift in Britain's overall performance and resulted in Britain winning.
Bonus fun fact: Pitt the Elder actually met with Benjamin Franklin to talk about the colonies in Parliament before the war happened, and throughout the revolution, he constantly predicted the Americans' actions with a surprisingly high accuracy.
10:08 I can't believe you missed the opportunity to say "things were going south".
I thought "Jack was surely keeping this pun for a later point in the video" but it never came 😢
He showed some remarkable restraint this video.
Things went South
For Lord North
Another aspect of the BEIC tea versus Dutch tea was that North used it as an excuse to reinforce the pretty much ignored navigation acts which cut down on smuggling and led to a defacto (in the eyes of the colonists) monopoly for a British company on selling them British tea. Not to mention most Americans already involved themselves with smuggling or subverting the navigation acts and their associated taxes so beyond being petty with the tea tax it’s also a sneaky way for the British to enforce that tea money gets back to them by hook or by crook
It was a bit more complicated. There had been a system where the king would tell the colonial governors he wanted X money, the governors would tell each colonial legislature they need to raise X money, then the colonists would pass the appropriate taxes and then send back the money. King George III ended this system and had Parliament directly pass taxes on the colonists, often ones way more onerous than what the colonists would have passed themselves if told to raise X amount of money. Add in England cracking down on the colonists trading with other European countries which the colonists used to do freely in order to get the best prices, and the colonists were pissed. Basically, the colonists saw themselves as crown possessions ruled directly by the king and not subject to parliament. King George trying to bring the colonists under parliamentary rule and also enforce mercantilist economic policies is what caused the revolution.
Excellently put. IIRC as late as ‘73-‘74 even men like Thomas Jefferson were still holding out hope that the king would intervene on the colonies’ behalf and assert that America was subject only to the king, not parliament. What finally sent the Americans over the edge was the king’s decision to stick by parliament and declare that they were indeed the supreme legislature of the empire.
@@Johnsmith99663 Exactly. The American Colonies had what amounted to home rule and wanted to keep it. The colonists had watched what happened to Scotland and Ireland as they were brought more directly under the thumb of the English parliament and wanted none of it. Many of their ancestors had come to the colonies to gain land and stop being under the direct control of parliament.
0:20 Jamaica was paying 60% of it's budget on interest a fee years ago. That type of thing happens a lot actually.
“Its” and “few”
That might have been general debt (interest and principal) not just principal. I would assume nowadays any government spending more than 25% of the buget on interest alone would probably go bankrupt long before reaching 50% on since people would see that they have no shot on paying the principal on old debts.
10:28 a fantastic remake of what it means to be French.
I’m going to be annoying, but in the UK Parliament the prime minister sits on the right of the chair, and the Leader of the Opposition sits on the left (basically flipped the wrong way round.
There's another video where he had King James meeting with the House of Commons in person even though it was against tradition for the King to do so, lampshade left hanging.
I ain’t gonna lie this video has probably the best transition into its ad I’ve ever witnessed on, RUclips good on you.
Amazing video! A suggestion for a future one: The Life and Times of Norodom Sihanouk
That was as smooth of an ad segue as I've ever seen
Generally the reason why the Americans don’t “try to solve the representation issue” was because of the colonial charters and their history of being locally controlled. Under salutory neglect (the state of the colonies for over 70 years in some cases) laws were locally made, assemblies locally sourced, taxes organized locally and the British really didn’t bother to control the colonies all that much. Theirs so much faith in these independent colonial units in fact that it becomes difficult for “America” to become a concept of one nation for a long time they remain fiercely loyal to their state governments late into the war and beyond this is seen in the articles of confederation. So very simply representation in parliament Wasnt the issue so much as representation for what they saw as their own governments that had been functioning largely without the British for nearly 100+ years in some cases (156 years for Boston’s at the longest)
1:20 I see you there Westmoreland. Doin't think you can sneak that by me Jackie-boy.
I love your videos, man! I really hope VTH reacts to it too!
YES! I need to see him react to his!
I think we are being un-fair to lord north, He wanted to quit HE KNEW he was not up for the job and the king would't let him
holy shit whoever's animating this is doing amazing! i just noticed the eye twitches during this scene its so good 11:20
Not gonna lie that add transition was smooth. Took me a good 15 seconds longer than usual to see it coming.
I never heard ANY teacher, talk like this in ALL my years in school AND college. Yes, I did take a history classes, one which solely focus on the American Revolution. I thank you for finally telling the REAL story about the American Revolution. Since elementary school, I had this nagging feeling that the history of American revolution, wasn't so back and white. Now I can die happy. No joke.
Wow that was the best transition I've ever seen. Litterally was relevant to the video and explained the logic behind the video all while promoting the sponsor. Brilliant.
Jack Rackham, You should do an episode on Ned Kelly the famous Australian outlaw. Not only did he and his crew commit several 1800's Ocean's-11 style heists and bank robberies, but he built himself this nearly invincible iron armor out of scraps from farm equipment in a make-shift bush forge like a real life version of Iron Man making his first armor set "OUT OF SCRAPS! IN A CAVE!"
Ah yeah I remember that, ultimately became a lesson in where you are protected is as valuable as how thick you armor is, as once the initial shock of there armor effectiveness wore off lawmen shot them in the arms and legs and turned those suits of armor into metal coffins.
Great video as always
Remember-no Taxation-Adams 7:35.
Amazing.
Credit where it is due, the poor bastard knew he wasn’t up for the job and wanted to quit repeatedly.
[Not name dropping Guadalupe in the mention of the Caribbean]
Revolutionary historians: "Somebody bring me the extra sturdy keyboard and two bottles of wine, I will not stand for this personal insult!"
Was it really his fault if he requested to resign numerous times because he knew he wasn’t qualified but repeatedly denied?
I don’t know what I’m more impressed with, Jack’s skills in various accents, even different British accents, or how well informed the video was in a time period. Everyone ALWAYS makes a big deal with “No taxation with no representation” and the Boston Tea Party with zero context that the taxes they originally imposed made Americans go to the alternative Dutch tea to then play games with the colonies… That could have been avoided if there was someone in parliament to represent the colonies.
And yet the Brits try to convince themselves learning about the whole picture of the American Revolution War doesn’t affect them, as they repeated the same mistake OVER, and OVER, and OVER again.
Bravo on the ad segway that shit was masterful
7:30. By my knowledge the reason the colonies didn’t try to get representation in Great Britain’s parliament is the colonists somewhat already had representation, in the colonial legislatures of each colony. Meanwhile the governors were appointed from Great Britain, but fun fact, the legislatures controlled the governor’s salary most of the time, meaning the legislatures had a rather good countermeasure against them. The colonial legislatures for the most part instituted direct taxes, meanwhile the Empires legislature had, until right before the revolutionary war, instituted tariffs. No taxation without representation was less a cry for representation in parliament, and more for keeping power in the hands of their local elected governments. As I’ve seen a couple others say, the tax on tea was to used in part to pay the governors salary so they could do what Britain wanted without risking financial ruination. This threatened the colonial governments power, and things went downhill from there.
thats a way more interesting take
@@tomatensoup190 But also a nightmare to fully explain in a 15 minute video lol
I pride myself on smelling when an ad is coming on with my finger on the FFW but you got me hook line and sinker with that one! ..I still FFW'd it, but, you know.. Kudos.
Holy Shit, I just realized based on paintings that Elon Musk looks like a physical reincarnation of Lord North.
LOVE YOUR CONTENT ❤❤❤❤
3:00 okay, that was an inconspicuous ad break.
I’m from the UK and Lord North was the MP for my home town back then. He’s buried in one of the local villages
RIP Lord North, your blundering of America laid the path so many Tory politicians could blunder the rest of Britain away after you
3:10 I knew it was gonna go there, but that was super smooth
"Oh God, it's all over" is an actual quote I know that yay
Very interesting. Thank you.
Love your videos
The colonists were not, in fact, able to expand towards the Mississippi. Due to frequent battles with Pontiac and his allies, the British signed the royal proclamation of 1763 with the ottawas and several other native confederations, which restricted settlement west of the Appalachian mountains.
"Let me see a show of hands" 🖐️
The proclamation line of 1763 was instituted after Pontiac's Rebellion and limited colonial expansion to the Appalachian ridge. This is arguably one of the causes of the Revolution.
You get my vote for most legendary segue into a sponsorship. 10/10
you light up my life sire
Everything went south for North. 😳
Man that ad transition was so smooth I didn’t realize it was an ad for a few minutes
1:40 not to mention a _stunning looker_
Poor guy, one of the worst cases of 'right place, wrong time' I've ever seen.
4:35 Excellent visual of the American Militia attacking the American Militia, this is a great Alternate History vid.
I have always cheered the US side in history class but damn I actually feel bad for North.
"Things were not going North's way." What a waste of an opportunity to say, "Things were going south."
I also heard that the tea was moldy/had been improperly stored so it wasn’t in good condition and no one wanted it back in England/Britain so they were trying to force the colonists to buy it.
That was one smooth ad transition my guy!
It's funny how such an unpopular guy was, if anything, one of the most self aware prime ministers of all time. He kept telling his boss he can't do it, he's not cut out for it, he'll fail miserably, he's going to hate him. And in a shocking display of loyalty, George just stands by his friend until the bitter end. If ever such a wholesome tale of honesty and loyalty could turn so dark, it's this.
Nelson Muntz sees Lord North: "HA-HA!"
One of the biggest factors most people fail to realize is that the colonies weren't asking to just pay less taxes. They just wanted a representative in the Parliament. Had they just given them a seat at the table, they probably would have stayed loyal to England. Instead, they were ignored and taxed even more.
I dnt think mst ppl fail to understand the phrase "No taxation w/o representation"
@Enbionic_Titan the king and parliament did
@OhboyHereWeGo818 they did, they just ddnt give a shit lol
The Proclamation of 1763 after the French and Indian War prevented the English colonies in America from expanding westard towards the Mississippi River. This mandate from the Parliament was designed to prevent conflict with native tribes and thusly avoiding another expensive war in the New World
Imagine if America had simply gotten representation and the other colonies as well and then today Canada, the American colonies, Australia, New Zealand are all still ruled by the UK Parliament where they have representation
Australia never fought for independence but basically forced to. So US independence was going to happen one way or another, ttoghly likely would be a much smaller country.
Really a marvel how he wasnt deposed given his string of bad decisions and madness there at the end
King George managed to cling to the thrones thanks to the competency of his ministers. They worked hard to ensure that if he were to lose it fully, he would be replaced by his son.
@@shivill2236, and by the Napoleonic Wars, his son was basically running the show for him anyway.
@occam7382 Eh... kinda. The real people in charge at that moment would actually have been the Prime Minister. Pitt, the Younger and Spencer Perceval, were both able to get what they wanted from the regency crisis. For those brief moments, they were the actual tip of the government.
2:45 OMG that's gotta be one of the best transitions to a sponsor ever 🤣
The no Russian reference is elite
You should do a video about that random prussian guy who helped train the continental army some time