As an American I can say you’ve done a great job here. Unfortunately most Americans are taught a children’s version of these events, reflected in many of the comments here. They never hear about the founders’ land speculating, their desire to drive out the Indians and take the West, their plans to conquer Canada, the New England merchants’ desire to take control of the Caribbean, and to expel all European powers from the entire hemisphere. Except for the conquest of Canada (there were two unsuccessful invasions), eventually all this just “happened”.

As an avid history buff, imagine excitement on hearing two of Britain's foremost historians were embarking on a wide-ranging podcast! Upon first listening, imagine my surprise at the interspersed purile 70s schoolboy humour! Naturally I was hooked and delighted!

It is astonishing that despite over a century of friendship the British still don't understand the American perspective on the American Revolutionary War. From the American point of view, the major causes of the war were taxation without representation in Parliament, the restriction on trade in the thirteen colonies by the British colonial mercantilist system, and the restriction on individual rights that the colonists rightfully believed was due to them under British law, as "the absolute rights of every Englishman". Far from refusing to negotiate, the First Continental Congress issued a Petition to the King in October of 1774 in response to the Intolerable Acts. Even as late as July 1775, the Second Continental Congress was still trying to avoid war, they issued the Olive Branch Petition. These entreaties were rebuffed. In fact, the British refused to even receive the Olive Branch Petition when it arrived at Court in August 1775. Later that week, the King issued the Proclamation of Rebellion. This occurred a year before the Declaration of Independence and when hostilities had only broken out in one colony: Massachusetts. Despite this, the Proclamation declared all the North American colonies in rebellion. In appealing to the King, the Continental Congress was not trying to subvert Parliament as "Royalists". The American Revolutionary leaders were not "Tories". In fact, they saw themselves carrying on the Whig and Liberal tradition of the 17th Century in opposition to a Tory government of Lord North in Parliament. (This is where the monikers "Patriots" and "Tories" comes from. In the thirteen colonies supporters of Independence were referred to as "Patriots" and supporters of loyalty to the crown were called "Tories".) The Continental Congress appealed to the King because the King was the sovereign in whose name Parliament acted; the Colonies were founded upon royal charters and not acts of Parliament; the King was the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces being quartered in the colonies; Parliament had no legitimate claim over the colonies since the colonies had no representation in Parliament; and because English Law had a longstanding tradition of subjects being able to petition the King as a judicial court for redress of grievances and to seek relief from unjust laws which infringed on their rights. All of these entreaties and redresses were rebuffed by the British government with no good faith effort to negotiate. The Proclamation of Rebellion undermined moderates in the Continental Congress that were still seeking a peaceful resolution. Frankly, the root cause underlying the injuries above and the lack of response to American attempts at negotiations was British Imperialism, a refusal to treat British subjects living in the colonies as equals with equal rights under the law and equal representation in Parliament.

Bostonian here. One of the great sources of frustration for our local rum industry, and for consumers in general, was the British prohibition on molasses, used to make rum, from Spanish Cuba and Puerto Rico, and from French Sainte-Domingue (later Haiti). It was more readily available, and far cheaper, than what was available from producers in British Jamaica and Barbados, which the English nevertheless insisted Americans use as sources for sugar products. It gave rise to smuggling, and made reduction of sugar taxes seem irrelevant to Americans in that it didn't address the issue of American access to cheap sugar. The prohibition was also seen as benefiting wealthy producers and merchants at the expense of the American public.

Imagine if they had just given us a few seats in Parliament? We'd have conquered the whole world together.

I Love listening to the rich articulate voice of Professor Adam Smith, Tom and Dominic picked the right man for this interesting series on the American Revolution. My only gripe being English myself is to not hear an American historians view or account, apart from that, it's brilliant.

Oh my word, you Limeys did it! With interest, I listen.

Were the colonists anti-Parliament? Or were they only asking for direct representation in Parliament? Their problem with Parliament, it's my understanding, was that they had no members in it.

I'm excited to hear your treacherous British perspective on the greatest struggle for liberty in man's history.

Franklin was asked "now you've won what will become of the revolution? Replied the revolution was over 20 years ago. That galvanizing is intersting if true

I don't understand how the desire by American colonialists to have political representation in parliament was ignroed in this podcast. Maybe the next episode? This is huge.

Always good to hear a British historians perspective on the American revolution. We're so caught up in the modern politics of it all.

If the Americans did not have representation in parliament, then they were right to disobey it. They were subjects of King George but they were not parliamentary constituents, so I think you're being unfair to present them as being absurd in their royalism and for being disdainful of parliament.

Hi guys. Love ur podcasts. Can you please do one and the Barbary slave trade and Thomas Pellow?

What the British didn't understand was that they left the colonists to regress into far more savage mentality and suddenly decided to civilize them. By then there was a cultural disconnect across the Atlantic. The British were thinking of making peace with the natives and even abolish slavery. But the colonists were by then confident enough to ask for more. They had suffered and now that Ohio was almost in their grasp thought that London was holding them back. They wanted more and didn't care for natives and certainly didn't want to give up slavery. The more immigrants arrived there was more pressure to take over more land and implement what the British had done in the West Indies. They had more of a warrior attitude than the gentry in London. Enlightenment stuff was as usual excuse to demand for freedom or in other words to be left alone to do what they wanted instead of being told what to do by a bunch of old men across and ocean. George Washington and the rest who has enslaved Africans under the British Flag now wanted their own. You see that all throughout history with expats during the age colonialism. They are sent into the heart of darkness on behalf of their masters and once they embrace darkness they no longer want to listen to their comfortable masters. This reminds me of scene in Apocalypse Now with the French expats who have nothing to return to in France and just want to keep what they fought for. The same was true of Rhodesia and South Africa. After they had climatized to the savagery, they were different with different values. This is that same thing as with the third world wanting to burn fossil fuel but being told not to do so by Westerners who had built their progress on the same fossil fuel that they were now being denied by the same people who started climate change. As usual illogical but understandable.

What happened to the James Cook pre history episode??🤔Has someone taken offence?

Whitehall couldn’t understand the Americans complaints as they were lowly taxed and had everything they wanted so why need more land. This from Britain expanding still around the world, and is this showing the class stay in your lane culture of English?

George Washington did not have wooden teeth. Wtf? Shocked an Oxford professor actually believes that.

The American revolution depending on what teacher you get in high school can be very different. It is very strange because I switched Teachers halfway through my sophomore year and the view of the American revolution was like a 180°. One guy was super patriotic and ra ra america was wronged and rising on the world vs a guy who said the american revolution happened because Britain was transitioning to a world empire and was still on the learning curve. And that the revolution by modern standards was not justifiable

Oh jeez, they actually did it. The story of my treacherous forefathers lol

Here in Connecticut we have been dealing lead to tyrants for almost 250 years. Tell King George we say hi!

It sounds to me like most of the problem here was a breakdown of communication, which isn't surprising considering the distances involved, and the length of time the societies had been separated. When it comes to allocating blame for what happened, Britain can only be blamed for poor tactics and some insensitivity in its' handling of the colonies. The Americans however can be blamed for wanting their cake and eating it. If they'd been given de facto Independence under the Crown they'd have expected to pay no tax to the Crown, but if they ever needed defending they'd have expected Britain to pay with money and lives to defend them. We still get this sort of thing nowadays. Independence movements in Scotland and Wales in the UK, think they can become Independent, whilst despite having been over represented in the Parliament which has borrowed it all, refusing to take their share of the UK National Debt with them, and even continue to receive state pensions from the English taxpayer and have their banks and bank deposits underwritten by the Bank of England. Needless to say they'd expect to be defended, whilst spending nothing on their own on defence. Even now the UK spends FAR more in Wales and Scotland (in the case of Wales double) the amount it collects from them in tax, but the nationalists still complain they're not getting even more. There's also controversy going on at the moment about the Wales and Scottish Government's disastrous handling of Covid. Despite the fact that they have total devolved responsibility for public health, their excuse is that they didn't receive 'leadership' from the UK. In this respect the Scottish Nationalists even sometimes refer to England 'as the lead nation'. This is exactly what was happening in the Colonies, but much more so. There'd have bound to be fracture eventually. The best thing to have done would have given them total Independence under the Crown, and if they ever needed defending tell them we want cash up front. On the other hand there was a happy outcome for Great Britain from the War of Independence. France's meddling in it bankrupted them and largely caused the French Revolution, which ruined France. Britain retained all our valuable trading links with the USA whilst France gained nothing and soon ended up with no possessions at all in North America.

A timely conversation.

Loved the episode! Definitely not an American group here. A couple small things: 1. There were ~2.5 million people in the 13 colonies 2. George Washington didn’t have wooden teeth--they were likely ivory or someone else's teeth

But didn’t those children who went out into hostile territories deserve and were owed less tax than in England which had all the established government provisions which the Americans created at great cost?

The colonials are still here

Fellow Americans, what do think? If you had lived back at that time, would you have supported the revolution, or would you have been a Royalist? Why?

"So-called" boston massacre, Dom?!! My sister was killed in the Boston Massacre!

Its nice to actually hear the historical intricacies and nuance of the history of the American revolution rather than the idealistic fairytale that always seems to get retold.

How much Limey cope we have here?

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 we don’t listen to tyrants if we CANT BE REPRESENTED. “NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION”wallow in ya weepin ya Brits!!

Americans need to know and understand these truths--and much more.

Was really hoping this would be a Dominic and Tom only episode. Guests always mean better info but worse fun

Love listening to these guys but adverts every 5 mins is intolerable

First! I'm first! Last, first I am!

The colonies petitioned the king because parliament refused to grant them representation. Supremacy of parliament when said parliament refuses to represent them is fairly nonsensical. And there was a plan to subjegate the colonists, it was being actively carried out. They weren't being represented and were having laws imposed upon them without any means for them to consent. I don't get why this is such difficult item to grasp. That is subjugation.

its better pero eso es otra historia, the videos are funniest....

Now guys if you wanted the unbiased perspective maybe a Polish or Swedish historian would have done the job a little more evenhandedly. Just sayin'.

It's a shame you didn't make more of an effort to bring an American Historian in for this, considering how misinformed on some points you are. George Washington didn't have wooden teeth and Benjamin Franklin was far more than a 'folksy scientist dabbling with electricity." He was a formidibale intelligence well-versed on the workings of British Parliament. So to say that Americans were ignorant of the role of the monarchy in relation to parliament is completely wrong. Some loyalists undoubedtly petitioned the King directly to intercede on their behalf, but the colonists at the forefront of governance simply rejected the parochial manner in which a theretofore dismissive and neglectful Empire had without consultation was sending down edicts to impose greater restrictions and taxation. More importantly, the condescending tone with which you trace over what to many Americans are significantly disturbing events, like the Boston Massacre, is disturbing. You summarization in dismissive terms and without proper diligence in your investigations into the matter, makes you seem as pompous and ignorant as the British at the time. For example you failed to provide the background to the incident in which a 50 gun warship arrived in Boston harbor and seized a Merchant Sloop. A young boy had also been murdered just prior by a British customs agent. These incidents greatly inflamed tensions, which as is typical of British historians/apologists, was omitred in order to make yourselves feel better. The fact that only a few men died in comparison with other battles throughout history doesn't make it any less a 'massacre' to those who were there. It does not put you in good light to attempt to minimize the incident as an oversensationlized skirmish by backwards colonists as your chortling manner conveys. No wonder American colonists kicked your soggy bottoms out and proceeded to build the largest empire in human history. Now they are the ones on the brink of letting much of it slip away, and it will no odubt be due to the same arrogance and dismissiveness that this will come to pass.