Transcript
Use with ChatGPT / Claude Auto-scroll A
Explains how support for independence was divided among colonists and why many remained Loyalists. It also discusses why labels like patriot are historically complicated and perspective-dependent.
Speaker A
With all of the background and documents and all of that out of the way.Now we're going to spend time talking about the Revolutionary War itself, but where we're actually going to start is with the support for the war and a group called the Loyalists.
The support for independence was not a majority of the colonists, at least until the.Now, I guess now the.Yeah, the colonists.And then afterwards, the.The Americans was not a majority until the last few years of the war.
So for most of this fight, most people, most colonists or Americans were not in favor of independence.And I can break this down for you.Statistically, 40 to 45% of colonists supported the revolution.15 to 20% remained loyal to the British.And 25,000 of them joined directly joined the war effort to some degree.Not necessarily that all 25,000 were soldiers, but they supported the war effort directly.35 to 45%.35 to 45% remain neutral and stayed out.And here's a map showing you those generally, those areas that were more green, that were more for independence.The dark red, which were loyalists, strongly light red, which are lightly loyal or neutral native nation areas, and then the gold or brown, which were neutral.
I do want to point out.So it's 15 to 20%, but you don't see a lot of dark red on here.You've got a couple of cities here that make the difference.New York right here, this solid glob of red, and then Baltimore right here, another solid glob of dark red.So that's where you get those numbers from.
In particular, with everything discussed, why would someone remain loyal?And who were these Loyalists?Most were older or many were older and wealthy.Both groups typically resistant to change.When you think of the most of the demographics of people who are most in favor of change, you're probably not going to think of the elderly or the super wealthy, right?Or even just the moderately wealthy.Those groups are not necessarily at the forefront of change.If they weren't part of those two groups and they were still Loyalists, why would that be?Others were simply just strongly loyal to the King, if not their homeland in general.Throwing off one's loyalty and government and all of that is not an easy thing, no matter how disgruntled people get with the government.It's one thing to be upset at the government and want change.It's another thing to just want to separate entirely.
Independence movements are not born out of simple or easy decisions.So some still held onto their loyalty, despite the problems.I mean, many of the Loyalists were sympathetic to the arguments and Ideas of those who wanted independence, but they weren't ready to support a full revolution.Maybe they thought there could be more peaceful alternatives before war.And in fact, that's an important point.Many of those who remain loyalist and who were sympathetic reacted negatively to, to the use of violence by colonists, particularly against one another.It's not even talking about violence against the British soldiers, it's against one another.I talked about that with the Sons of Liberty.
Others simply had no faith in the colonial military effort or their ability to win.You may be sympathetic with them, but if they don't have, you don't think they have the ability to win, why would you side with them or you're not going to throw everything in in that regard, they weren't unpatriotic, they just were of a different mind.And aside from the old and the wealthy that I described, these are all reasonable positions, right, that the Loyalists took.It's hard to throw off your loyalty to king and country, right?All of those arguments, they're not necessarily unreasonable.
You may have noticed to this point in this course, particularly in these last several lectures in the lead up to and discussing the Revolution, there's a word I have not used for the colonists and that's patriot.Each side believe themselves to be patriotic and they both have a case.That's why labels such as patriot aren't useful in a historical context or discussion.One person's patriot is another person's rebel or terrorist.I mean, look at it this way.Which of these is patriotic?One, to call out and resist your government's flawed actions through means up to and including violence.Or two, to support the government despite its flaws, with or without supporting fixing those flaws.
Depending on your perspective, both of the one or both of those can be patriotic.Each was doing what they thought was right, what they thought was patriotic and with loyalty.One side was still loyal to the British government and the King, and one side they believed was loyal to their fellow colonists.
Just like I talked about with Pain, the use of words, the messaging can be just as important.Most of you, when you learned about this in high school and below, the word patriot was used, and it's even on the map here, strong patriot support.It's not really a good label because both were patriotic, depending on your perspective.Like I said, one person's patriot is another person's rebel or terrorist.So that's why I haven't used the word, because words matter and labels are sometimes just that.
Introduces George Washington's leadership and his strategy of retreat, morale, and attrition. The section explains how surviving losses, rather than winning every battle, helped the Americans outlast the British.
Speaker A
So that's one last piece of background.Now we're going to look at the war itself.There were many battles in this war and the US lost the majority of them.If the US lost most of the battles, how did they win the war?George Washington and a strategy he developed.
Washington was not a great general overall.In particular, he was terrible as an offensive commander, for example, and he wasn't great at a lot of the pre and in battle decisions as well.
But he was near genius level at two things, retreating and leadership.And we're going to look at those briefly.Retreating, he lost most of his battles.He won three or two and a half really.And he lost somewhere around 30, 30 to 40.
So he lost most of his battles, but he always successfully got the army out intact.And when I've done this lecture in person and I've mentioned retreating is an important skill, there's always students who snicker or scoff and laugh or whatever thinking that retreating is a valuable skill.But it actually, it's a very important skill as a commander who cannot maintain order and defeat will lose far more than they already have.Some of the best generals when it comes to attacking have not necessarily been good at the other side when they lose.And considering there's basically three generals in the whole of history who never lost a battle, you need to know how to retreat.
So unless you're, was it Subutai, General Suvarov of Russia or Alexander the Great, you need to know how to retreat.And Washington wasn't, didn't just know, but he was genius level at it.I talked about, when I talked about the marquee de Lafayette, how he was good, degraded everything.I use the basketball analogy.You have those specialists who have this one, one or two things they do extremely well and a lot of other things they don't do well.This is Washington.One of the things he did really well was retreating.The other was leadership.He was an incredible leader of men.He led by his own example and used his own money and resources to keep the army going through rough times.He would pay for supplies they didn't have enough.If the men weren't getting paid by the Second Continental Congress, he would pay them out of his own pockets.
If they were sleeping in terrible conditions, he would also sleep in relatively similar terrible conditions.
So he was an excellent leader of men and he was excellent at retreating.Near genius level, those two things.
At the end of 1775, the British had evacuated Boston after Lexington and Concord.And Washington realized that the Continental army could not continuously defeat the British in a bunch of pitched, you know, knock down, drag out battles.They could not Stand toe to toe like a boxer in the middle of the ring trying to out punch Mike Tyson.Right.You're not going to do it.
Most boxers, he realized that would be a losing proposition.The British were better armed, better trained, and had a massive numerical advantage.Instead, Washington realized the key to victory was survival.The longer the fight continued, the longer the Continental army persisted, the more resources the British would be forced to use, the more costly the war would become, and the more unpopular the war would become.Back in Britain, the plan wasn't to defeat the British, but to make them quit by dragging the war out.
The Continental army, for this to work, must survive.If it is destroyed, so too would be the revolution.His abilities at maintaining morale and retreating the army allowed this to work.So he would fight a battle, lose, but the army would survive almost nearly intact.And his ability to keep morale going through all of these losses, not moral morale.
If you're losing a bunch, no matter if it's war or sports or games or whatever, or life, your morale is going to start to lose.You're going to start to feel like it's, you know, despondent or all those negative emotions.But Washington was able to keep that from overcoming the army.This was not a new approach.This is not something Washington invented out of thin air.
One of the most famous examples of it is the Romans when fighting Hannibal in the Second Punic War.It was called the Fabian strategy.This is a war of attrition, essentially what Washington is fighting.So instead of punching the British in the.Trying to punch the British in the face, his plan was to fight when he could.
And when the British punched him in the face and he got knocked down, he made sure to always get back up and keep fighting to the point where eventually the British would just go, well, I can't.I can't knock this guy out.And they would quit.This approach won the war for the Americans, despite Washington's many, many losses.And the generals who followed his strategy, whether they had their own smaller armies or were his subordinates, if they followed Washington's strategy, they typically found success in the war.And those that did not follow his strategy ended up with disastrous consequences.
Covers the significance of the Battle of Saratoga and why it persuaded France to join the war openly. It also shows how French supplies, troops, and naval support were essential to American victory.
Speaker A
So it's this strategy that wins the war.Now, there is one battle I want to talk about because it's the most significant battle, and that is the Battle of Saratoga.I'm not going to talk about the battle itself, but what I will say is it's part of a complicated strategy.In 1777, the British were going after two big cities.Washington was not At Saratoga, he was dealing with the other half of the British strategy, which is further south around Philadelphia.
This was fought here in upstate New York.You can see this is New York State.Vermont's right here.Massachusetts right here.And you see the arrow down at the bottom going to New York City.
So right here, Saratoga.
This was a victory for the US A pretty decisive victory as well.The details of the campaign of battle do not matter for our purposes, only the significance.And there were two significances for Saratoga.He fought on the 7th of October, 1777.The first is, while the French did not participate in this battle, this decisive victory convinced them to join the war on the American side.So the French weren't at Saratoga, but this victory convinced them to join the war.The French were already sending supplies, but now pledged direct involvement.They made an alliance and were the first nation to officially recognize the US and its independence.And we talked about the Continental Congress trying to recruit the French, and they wouldn't join.And they told you they didn't join because they didn't think the colonists would win and there was nothing in it for them.
So what changed?Well, Saratoga.
And remember, the French also often acted when they could give the British a black eye, when they could stab them in the back.And they're not going to join because they were good friends with the colonists, as we've discussed.But Saratoga convinced them that the colonists could win this war.A big decisive victory on the few of these that the Americans won and the really the only big decisive victory without Washington at the helm.
So they were convinced they could win.But the other part was they what was in it for them.And what the French just wanted was to regain their losses and get payback for the French and Indian War.They thought that if they helped the colonists and now the Americans win this war, then they could get back some of the territory they lost from the French and Indian War, whether it was the Louisiana territory, parts of the Caribbean, or Canada.They wanted some of that land back.
Did France believe in the revolutionary cause?Absolutely not.They weren't just a monarchy like Britain, but they were an absolute monarchy.There was no parliament in France.The king was the government, and the government was the king.
Other countries like Spain and the Dutch eventually did join, but not for a few more years and not because of the Battle of saratoga, despite what history.com would lead you to believe.
So the first significance is it convinces the French to join the war.The second is that French support in this war was critical to US Victory, as in the US Likely loses Without French aid, the French sent supplies, a small army, and naval support, all necessary to US Victory.For example, several US Campaigns were fought with mostly French supplies.Gunpowder or black powder and rifles, mostly at around 80 to 90% of the US total.You're not going to win a shooting war if you don't have black powder.And the way the guns worked at this time, very quickly is that it wasn't like the bullet and cartridge we have today.They would take the black powder and they would pour it down the barrel of the gun, then putting a wadding, then putting the bullet.And then when they pull, when they cock the gun and pulled the trigger, it would send a spark into the chamber, which would light the gunpowder or black powder, which would then accelerate the the musket ball out.
Without the black powder, you're just putting a metal ball in a tube and like, hoping for the best.It's not going to fire.
So 80, 90% on several campaigns for the US of their black powder came from France.
You don't win a war without those things.They wouldn't have won a certain battle.Couple several battles, but particularly Yorktown, the last one without the French, the small French army and the French naval support.So the victory at Saratoga convinced the French to get openly and directly involved in the war, and the US Likely loses the war.Even with Washington's strategy without that involvement.Washington's strategy works as long as you have guns to fire.Without that, it's all said and done.
Reviews the Treaty of Paris of 1783, its main terms, and the treatment of Loyalists after the war. It concludes by explaining the broader significance of the Revolution and the importance of the new government's success.
Speaker A
So this brings us to the end of the war.The treaty that ended the war was the Treaty of Paris of 1783.And you've already had a treaty of Paris, 1763.
That was the treaty that ended the French and Indian War.It's about the only time I will say pay attention to the dates, because I'm not going to ask you what year was the Treaty of Paris that ended the American Revolution.But this will help you keep them separate.1783 is the Revolution.63 is the French and Indian War.
The three American negotiators were John Jay, who we'll talk about quite a bit early in Unit two.He's one of the founding fathers, John Adams, who I already mentioned in the context of the Boston Massacre as a lawyer, also the first vice president, the second president, and Ben Franklin, who doesn't really need much of an introduction.I will say, though, if you're going to read one thing by Franklin, read his advice on taking a mistress.If you thought Franklin was just a guy who invented stuff, you're missing out On a whole other side of Ben Franklin.In fact, John Adams got mad at Franklin while they were trying to negotiate this treaty over a period of a couple years, because Franklin was spending more time carousing with the women of Paris than helping him negotiate.
So Washington's strategy worked.And with the US victory at Yorktown in 1781, the British were ready to end the war.They wanted to quit.Remember, Washington came up with this strategy end of 75, and here we are.81 was technically when the fighting stops.It was six years of the British accomplishing nothing significant.So peace negotiations are already going, but it takes a few years to complete.There are five points to this treaty.Pretty simple, straightforward.First, Britain recognizes American independence.
Second, they recognize the US borders, The Great Lakes in the north, the Mississippi river in the west, and Spanish Florida in the south.Great Lakes, Mississippi River, Spanish Florida, as you can see on the map.And I moused over.
Third, the Americans agreed to pay their war debts to the British.Now this is a little odd because usually the loser pays the war debt.But the US didn't want to lose the treaty.Britain basically threatened, we're not going to agree to your independence if you don't pay your war debts.So in a reversal of the normal situation in a treaty, the per the country, the winning side agrees to pay the debts of the war.
And then fifth and final, sorry, I missed one.Fourth.Now, Britain agreed to remove all of their soldiers from within US borders immediately.That's point four.Point five American Congress or the United States agreed to restore the rights of the Loyalist.
The British were trying to protect those who had remained loyal.Many of those had.Loyalists had fled to Canada.And once they were identified as Loyalist, either their state government or the Continental Congress government or the New Articles government seized, restricted their rights and seized their property, both land and other property.So they lost everything.So Britain is trying to protect them here.The significance of this treaty.Both sides will fail to uphold their promises, especially the last three points.But we're going to talk about that failure a little bit under the Articles, but mostly in unit two.
And this brings us to the significance of the Revolution.With the colonies now an independent country, what did all of this mean?Well, it was now the first attempt at the ideas of self government.All of the ideals of the Declaration, what the social contract, all of that put into deliberate action.But none of those ideas would be significant if the government that followed failed or if the experiment, the American experiment failed.
So getting this first government right was important.And unfortunately the government they created was the Articles of Confederation, and they absolutely did not get that right.But that is for the next video.