History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

[aparch]

Wait, wait, the British troops that the colonists were fighting against were originally there as peacekeepers between the colonists and the first nations people? And the revolution was a combination of rich, white, land owners wanting more land (and hating on the natives) AND the peasant class revolting against the rich, white, land owners?

http://vm.tiktok.com/ZM8ovYNB5/

There more info on this?

[Kepler]

Dates check. That must have been weird:

[aparch]

Dates check. That must have been weird:

I love a good history bit turned pop-culture punchline (the majority of the early years of Archer), but this one escapes me.

[MichVandal]

Wait, wait, the British troops that the colonists were fighting against were originally there as peacekeepers between the colonists and the first nations people? And the revolution was a combination of rich, white, land owners wanting more land (and hating on the natives) AND the peasant class revolting against the rich, white, land owners?

http://vm.tiktok.com/ZM8ovYNB5/

There more info on this?

He's missing a key part of the theory- the French. The war was not completely against the people who were living here, it was more against the French who were trying to stake their claim to parts of North America. The tax was to pay for the pretty darned expensive war in North America that resulted from George Washington starting the French Indian War, which ended up as a global conflict between England and France- the Seven Years War.

Which puts the French support of the US Revolution into better context- France knew that the conflict threatened the concept of Royal Colonies, but they wanted to pwn the British. (and hoped they would get part of Canada back)

The theory that the rich started the war in the first place resonates pretty well- Hancock was a smuggler. But it's not the only thing- where the British did threaten the smaller groups- enough that farmers were willing to fight a war. Without support from the common person, there's no people to fight the war. And considering the ability of the Continental Congress to pay the army- keeping the common people engaged was pretty critical.

One claim I find rather dubious is the "British Troops on the Border" idea- unless he's trying to suggest that Boston was on the Border- the treatment of the citizens by the British Army in Boston was a significant contributor to the hearts and minds. From what I have seen, other than a handful of forts with a handful of people- most of the British were in major cities- New York, Charleson, Boston, Quebec City (which was an occupation army until they convinced the French living there being British was a better option than French).

edit- another issue with the "British Peacekeeper" idea- if that was factual, there would have immediately been conflict with the new United States and the natives all across the country- out to the Mississippi. And the US didn't raise another army until we decided to tax whiskey. So that's kind of a stretch, too.

Have to look into the war he was talking about that lead to the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation.

[MichVandal]

Instead of editing the last message, a quick read over of the Shay's Rebellion kind of puts some sand in the theory gears.

Yes, it was an uprising in Western Mass- about taxes and whatnot (just like the Whiskey Rebellion), and militia was needed to put it down.

And you can connect the dots between that and the Constitution. But not as a rebellion for freedom. The Constitution was an reorganization of the states, not a rebellion. In the 1780's, the problems with the Articles of Confederation not really allowing the central government to have any significant power became clearer and clearer every year. The Articles had the system State Centric vs. Federal Centric- which meant that the states that put a lot into the Revolutionary War but could not afford it got screwed, whereas the states that could afford it were ok. And when issues popped up in each state- it was the responsibility of the State to deal with it as opposed to the US. Shay's Rebellion had to be dealt with in Massachusetts, not Virginia.

The Constitution changed the majority of the national issue responsibilities to the Federal Government instead of the states. Which helped both for defense (including paying for it) and the economy- since it kind of leveled the playing field economically. Of course, it was far from perfect, since the compromises did lead to the Civil War. But it held the country together enough to start a powerful economic system.

So tldr- Shays Rebellion just showed how impotent the Articles were.

[aparch]

Thanks for expanding upon it! That makes more sense.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

The theory that the rich started the war in the first place resonates pretty well- Hancock was a smuggler.

IIRC he was also the richest man in Boston, so he bought a lot of drinks for like-minded men.

[MichVandal]

IIRC he was also the richest man in Boston, so he bought a lot of drinks for like-minded men.

He also one of the leading financier of the war.

[Kepler]

I love a good history bit turned pop-culture punchline (the majority of the early years of Archer), but this one escapes me.

The Saxons under Harold Godwinson beat the Norwegians under Harold Hadrada at Stamford Bridge in 1066, just in time to get crushed by William the Conqueror's Normans at Hastings. Thirty years later, the First Crusade sent Anglo-Saxons, Norwegians, and Normans all on the same side to Constantinople in 1096, and then on into Asia Minor.

It's a mind**** to remember those disparate events are within the same lifetime. Those two events were separated by the same time as WW1 and WW2.

[dxmnkd316]

Jesus h Christiano Ronaldo

https://twitter.com/larrysabato/stat...958854656?s=21

[Kepler]

TFW a

https://preview.redd.it/t6qqod4ehqd8...b848bc43b6cf73

[Kepler]

Oh, reddit...

[aparch]

Bwahahahaha

[Kepler]

Greatest Nextdoor ever.

[dxmnkd316]

Cafe

lol