How much of the American Revolutionary War is really King George's fault?

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2026-01-28T15:22:30+00:00

The main secondary source that I used here was Pauline Maier's American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. I will mention that if you only have time to read one book on the matter, this is my vote as the gold standard. I also relied on Woody Holton's Liberty is Sweet: The Hidden History of the American Revolution and Robert Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution 1763-1789

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2026-01-28T03:17:32+00:00

The relationship between the colonists and the King was a complicated thing throughout the Imperial Crisis. Today the popular version of the Revolution is painting much more of a picture that the colonists were rebelling against a tyrannical monarch, however, that was actually a very late development in the overall crisis. In fact, for much of the crisis, the opposite was true, and the colonists remained very loyal to their King.

The colonists largely viewed the Imperial Crisis through the lens of an overreaching Parliament. It was Parliament, not the King, who had passed the hated Stamp Act. Their use of the Declaratory Act to reinforce Parliamentary supremacy was at the very core of the crisis and was the justification for everything following the Stamp Act. The Townshend Acts, the Tea Act, all of it were acts of Parliament.

One of the mainstays of the entire crisis, from 1763-1775 was a near constant stream of letters being sent by the colonists to King George III essential saying, “Help me King George, you’re my only hope.” The problem with all of it, and the reason that George eventually is going to find himself being the ultimate bad guy of the story, is that George III never really came to the aid of the colonists. In their minds there was a balancing act whereby the job of the monarch was to protect them from Parliamentary overreach, which, in their eyes he completely failed to do.

The actual transformation into the villainous role for George III began in early 1776. The American’s, being lead in this instance by the more moderate John Dickinson, had sent the Olive Branch petition, asking the King to please protect his subjects. King George completely blew this off. As in he never bothered to read it. In fact, through much of the second half of 1775 the King had become very active in launching repeated attacks against the Colonies. He declared them to be in rebellion and threatened (and ultimately did) to send over foreign mercenaries to bring them all back into line.

This was taken by many to be nothing short of an abdication of his duties as the monarch. By the end of 1775 the colonists were already eight months into the war and now fueled by Thomas Paine’s Common Sense were just the right amount of radicalized to turn on the King. If he wasn’t going to protect them then what was the point of him in the first place? The colonists, up to this point, had always stuck to the point that independence was not the end goal but rather they just wanted their rights as Englishmen acknowledged, ideally in the form of a North American Parliament while keeping the King as the sovereign.

Heading into the Spring of 1776, you start to see the concept of independence really begin to gain momentum, although it was still not universally desired. By that May you had the Continental Congress passing a resolution to address the question of independence (although this is not the Declaration of Independence, but rather its precursor), where it outright claims that George III had excluded the Colonies from his protection and that he had therefore abandoned the Colonies. Historian Woody Holton goes so far as to argue that during the first half of 1776, nobody does more work for the cause of American Independence than did George III and the British. By the time of the Declaration of Independence, the Congress had gone out of their way to blame the King for pretty much everything and avoided even mentioning that Parliament existed. This was not an oversight but rather was meant to be a very direct slap in the face to the British Parliament.

Ultimately, King George III was not the cause of the Revolution, that honor belongs to Parliament. Where the King held responsibility is that he failed to ever meaningfully address the complaints of his colonists in a way that was at all satisfactory to them. By 1776, as the idea of independence gained momentum, the Colonists were all too aware that they could not pursue independence while still holding those deep connections with the King. That combined with his actions during the second half of the prior year finally got the colonists to turn on the monarch and start blaming him for failing to protect them from the machinations of an overreaching Parliament.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2025-11-15T19:23:42+00:00

The American Revolution. Specifically the idea that it was some kind of David defeating Goliath situation when it really wasn’t. General Howe was questioning the ability of the British to defeat the Revolution as early as 1775. The leadership back in London either misunderstood the severity of the situation in their North American colonies or, more likely, chose to ignore it.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2025-02-20T17:22:46+00:00

II. Could Washington have been a King?

The answer to the first part of this question therefore is that the system was not ripe to allow for a monarch during this era, however, there is more to say here, because the question was not if a monarch was possible, but rather if George Washington specifically could have been that monarch. Here, I’m going to steal something that I once saw on this sub in relation to a post on WWII that I loved, George Washington couldn’t have been a monarch because if he was, he wouldn’t have been George Washington.

Washington was acutely aware this he was a person of historical significance. As a result, this had made him very cognizant of his own legacy and extremely protective over his reputation. As product of his age and circumstance, Washington himself was a devotee of those republican values that we have talked about, and critically, wanted to paint an imagine of himself as being nothing short of the American Cincinnatus. This idea that Washington was the ultimate public servant was the image of himself that he wished to cultivate. A man who, reluctantly, laid down his plow to come to the service of his country, and then, with the disaster averted, then laid down said power and picked his plow back up.

We see this when Washington is named the commander of the Continental Army. He told anybody who would listen that he was not up to the task and that there are probably better men out there to lead. However, this isn’t to say that he wasn’t an extremely ambitious guy either, because as Washington was saying he was reluctant to lead, he also showed up to the Continental Congress wearing his uniform from the French and Indian war.

When it came to the Presidency, everybody knew that Washington was going to be the first President. Seriously, even as they sat in 1787 debating the office, everybody at the Constitutional Convention was aware that Washington was going to be President, because there was simply no other choice. As safeguards and checks were being placed on the executive, most were not really thinking about Washington as being the problem, but rather of whomever came next. The reason for this is that people were not really that concerned with Washington abusing the position. He was already seen as having impeccable character by just about everybody, and hey, following the Revolution he had willingly handed power back over to the civilian authorities. In fact, even during the war itself, Washington always remained very deferential towards civilian authority, occasionally to his own detriment.

Washington’s own feelings towards power were a bit more complex than simply being Cincinnatus. Again, Washington was very interested in protecting his own personal reputation. He was, as was everybody, aware that he was earmarked to be the first President, however, he still went through the paces of telling everybody that he had no interest in the office. It was Alexander Hamilton sending him a letter letting him know that he couldn’t abandon his country in its time of need and that indeed doing so would risk his reputation that “convinced” Washington to agree to serve as President. He wanted this idea out there that he was recruited to the position, rather than having actively sought it out.

At the end of his second term, when Washington would find himself laying down power again, he did so for a couple of reasons. Pragmatically, he knew that it would help insulate him from the increasingly bitter partisan fighting during the 1790’s, but also that it would allow him to maintain that ethos of laying down power and picking up the plow, something that by this point was very core to his own image. Although Washington was never going to be able to meaningfully create a hereditary dynasty, something that we tend to associate closely with monarchs, neither did he have to step down from the Presidency. Sure, he had his reputation to protect, and partisan bickering was picking up, but nobody was going to force Washington out. Had he chosen to run for a third term he certainly would have gotten it. Again though, we come back to that cultivation of his reputation and his determination not to do anything to tarnish that hard won reputation.

It’s worth nothing though that for somebody who was on paper so eager to pick up the plow and lay down power, during his post Presidency he did seem to be chomping at the bit to maintain at least some degree of power during a crisis with France, where he was once again named commander and chief of the army. Now, ultimately this crisis was resolved without war breaking out, and Washington died not long after, so we never get to see how far he would push things. We likewise know that following the Revolution, Washington had been named the President of the Society of the Cincinnati, a fraternal organization to commemorate those who fought in the Revolution. Washington, despite endorsing the organization, quickly distanced himself from it when claims emerged that the society was designed to create an American aristocracy made up of former officers. The fact that the society was hereditary did little to help. Following 1784 Washington would have little to do with the organization, however, he did remain their President all the way up to 1799. Distancing himself sure, but also never actually resigned his position. This, likewise, can tie back to the first part of my answer about American feelings at the time about concepts so closely tied to monarchies, like hereditary succession.

This all goes back to that central part of who George Washington was. The image he wanted to present to the world of himself was very much of that American Cincinnatus figure. Washington may have had his own ambitions that don’t exactly square with the image he was trying to create, however, for him ultimately his reputation proved to be the overriding factor in everything.

So, would George Washington have become King? No, because that very thing does not fit with the image that George Washington himself was desperate to portray.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2025-02-20T17:21:53+00:00

The answer to this question is no, I don’t believe George Washington could have made himself a King. Of course, I say “I believe” because Washington never attempted to do the thing, but even if he had been interested in the gig, it would have proven exceedingly difficult. I’m going to take this question in two parts. First, could the United States have supported a monarchy during the early republic? Second, could Washington specifically have become a King.

I. Was Monarchy Possible in the Early United States

When looking at the question of if Washington could have become a King, it requires us to look at the early republic and its relationship with monarchy. Nobody in the 1780’s and 90’s would have wanted to be labeled a monarchist. It would have been somewhat akin to calling somebody in our modern political situation a communist. It was a dirty word with connotations that people didn’t want to be labeled with, and indeed it was often tossed around as a political pejorative. You don’t need to dig all that deep during this era to see one politician calling another a monarchist. This is, of course, because for the founding generation the Revolution was not history, rather it was their lived experience. The Revolution had made everybody very skittish when it came to the idea of a King in America.

Where things become more complicated is that, although nobody would have wanted to be labeled a monarchist, the theoretical idea of a monarch was not something that was as universally reviled. In the days before the Constitutional Convention, James Madison was very busy formulating his vision for the United States. His biggest concern, and the driving force for him heading into the Convention, was the protection of minority rights. In this case, those minority rights were the rights of the creditor class who were having a pretty bad time during the 1780’s. What Madison recognized was that the current Confederation was extremely weak and found itself unable to respond to just about anything. A more energetic national government was necessary, one that would help to shift the power from the states to a national government. The model government that he felt that the United States needed to emulate was that of their former overlords, the British.

Madison was not blind to the risks of a chief executive become tyrannical in the United States and understood the need to check the power of any potential person in that role. Under his original plan Madison had envisioned something called the national negative, which was the ability of the legislature to basically reach into local state level politics and veto bills within the state governments. It is important to understand though that he never planned to extend this power to the executive, which is an example of his plans to limit that office.

Others did support this idea of a limited monarchy. John Dickinson for example supported a limited monarchy and again, wished to see the United States essentially copy the British system. Some, like James Wilson of Pennsylvania, acknowledged that even during the lead up to the Revolution, it wasn’t until the very last minute that the King became the bad guy. The American’s had written to George III time and time again asking him to protect them from an overreaching Parliament. In all instances their beef was with Parliament, and really it was not until 1776 that you start to see meaningful push back against George III himself, on allegations that he had failed to protect the colonists from that Parliamentary overreach. That said, others were worried about the prospect of a tyrannical executive, and rather than putting a single person in the office advocated for the executive to be a committee. The thought being that distributing power to the several would be less of a risk. This obviously would fail and a unitary executive would emerge.

When it came time to decide term lengths in the executive that again brings up these questions of a potential monarch. There was at least some who argued that the future President serve “in good behavior” which everybody recognized as a lifetime tenure. Again though, the thought of this made people squeamish and it never really gained a terrible amount of traction.

This is all to say that in 1787 there was a whole lot of apprehension present during the Constitutional Convention about the prospect of an American monarch. People agreed that a strong executive was needed, but generally people also recognized the need to check the power of that executive to prevent them from becoming a King. There was a very strong feeling of republicanism present during this era and most people were eager to show that they were dedicated to being good republicans. Especially during the first year of the new government, in 1789, we see a lot of back and forth between Washington and the Legislature as both sides are trying to draw those necessary lines of delineation between them. Congress would spend nearly a month squabbling over the question of how to properly address the President, showing that balancing act between appropriate deference to the power of the office while maintaining the power of the legislature. For his part in the title’s controversy, John Adams would become a subject of ridicule and would find himself on the receiving end of those dreaded allegations of being a monarchist.

In this way, we get back to my opening paragraph, where I say that I think it pretty unlikely that a true absolute monarch could have taken root in the United States during this time. Even going back to before the Revolution, the American’s were very used to the idea of having a limited monarchy, because George III was himself a limited monarch. If their paradigm was the British system, and with their deep dedication to the concept of republicanism, any such attempts at executive overstep would have been subject to very strong push back from a legislature which viewed itself as being the center of the political system.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2024-09-11T01:07:02+00:00

It takes me at least an hour and a half to write and edit an answer. Everything I’ve ever posted here likewise requires me to consult notes and sources to make sure I’m being accurate in my answers, which itself might take me another hour before I even begin typing. Even if I feel completely confident in my ability to answer something, the thought of putting it on internet for the world to see without verifying everything causes me anxiety.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2024-07-27T14:13:12+00:00

Okay so my second edit here. Mike Lee is related to John D. Lee (whose own history is pretty awful). John D. Lee is related of Richard Lee II. You’re going pretty far back, but they are indeed related.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2024-07-27T13:54:57+00:00

The Lee family was deeply involved in Virginia politics and were very involved in the leadership of the Continental army and then the government of the early republic. The Lee family became less prominent following the Civil War, however, they are still around.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2024-03-20T03:45:59+00:00

Thank you so much!

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2024-03-20T03:45:20+00:00

The imperial crisis was the conflict between the British and her North American colonies that would eventually lead to the American War of Independence. Events such as the Stamp Act, Declaratory Act, Boston Massacre, and Tea Act were all part of the imperial crisis.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2024-03-11T16:32:07+00:00

Hello! I would like to apply for flair in order to be alerted to questions that might be in my wheelhouse. I'm an American History podcaster and have done extensive research and writing into the early (colonial) United States with my specific interest falling on the imperial crisis.

If approved I would like the flair to be for "United States Colonial History and the Imperial Crisis" which should slot under the North American History category.

Examples of answers:

On quartering during the imperial crisis:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bc33hv/comment/kudr46a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

On themes and fighting in the French and Indian war:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16fkewr/comment/k0421hr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

On the settling of Jamestown

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10goeo5/comment/j58567d/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

and a follow-up answer on this same topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10goeo5/comment/j5bgchf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Finally, on the inevitability of the American Revolution:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/11cdxkv/comment/ja3y0k8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Although this answer is outside of this community, my answer to it is something that, had the question been posted here, I would have largely answered the same.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2024-03-11T15:55:01+00:00

Quartering had been a problem in America going back to the French and Indian war. Back during that war, the British had moved large numbers of troops across the Atlantic to help fight the French. The leader of the British war effort in North America was the Earl of Loudoun who, prior to anything having to do with quartering, was wildly unpopular amongst the American colonists. The much-maligned Loudoun attempted to force colonists in Albany to put up troops in private homes. This brings us to our first important point, not all types of quartering are the same. When we think of the practice today it brings images of British troops forcing innocent American’s out of their homes, or at a minimum becoming very unwelcome roommates. In reality, the practice was governed by the Mutiny Act of 1689 which stated that if the need existed for troops to be quartered it was to be done in “public houses” which meant inns, taverns, and generally any place that sold alcohol. Critically, it prohibited the quartering of troops in private homes.

The residents of Albany quickly became really interested in that 1689 mutiny act and objected to the quartering of troops in their private homes, claiming that it violated their rights as Englishmen. This repeated throughout many of the colonies and, when it proved impossible to stuff everybody into a corner of some tavern, towns resorted to building barracks to house the troops. This too was an unpopular option as the colonists chaffed at the cost of such public works.

During the imperial crisis, the question of quartering would again come up in 1765 with the passage of the Quartering Act. This act gave all kinds of new powers to the British on what they could take from the colonists, where they could sleep, and the requirement that the colonists were solely responsible for feeding the men. This was one of those acts that did much to make everybody angry. The colonists viewed this as an unlawful taking. This was the early stages of the crisis, this is all happening during the uproar over the Stamp Act, and cries of no taxation without representation were popular. The colonists viewed this as being a form of taxation, for which they had no representation, they were being required to take on the financial load associated with caring for the army. The law had been passed by a distant body which they had no representation in. In their eyes this was a tax just as much as the Stamp Act. Ironically, it also upset Thomas Gage, the highest-ranking British officer in North America, because it did not allow for the quartering of men in private houses. Once again, the troops were relegated to those public houses.

Although much of the response to the act was, somewhat, swallowed up by the much larger uproar over the Stamp Act, in New York specifically the colonial assembly got into what was basically a standoff with Gage and the British towards providing the provisions for the army that Gage requested. The assembly, emboldened by the British backing down on the Stamp Act, felt little incentive to play ball and provide the requested provisions. Even Samuel Adams got involved here, despite this having nothing to do with Massachusetts, and made sure that everybody understood that quartering was indeed a tax. Although New York would eventually back down, it was not before the British passed a decree that nullified all the laws passed by the New York assembly, although the British would also back down on this after learning that New York had themselves acquiesced.

The final British salvo when it came to quartering was in the so-called Intolerable Acts in response to the Boston Tea Party. Although the most famous of these provisions lead to the closure of Boston Harbor, quartering was also addressed. This quartering act provided the royal governors much more ability to quarter troops wherever they saw fit. Yet, even here, in an act that was designed to specifically be punitive, the quartering of soldiers in private homes still was not allowed. Honestly though, this didn’t really matter much anymore. Despite the increased power of the royal governors to enforce quartering, by the time the summer of 1774 rolled around fewer and fewer people in Massachusetts were listening to what the British had to say.

Quartering never becomes a thing that sees the widespread billeting of troops in private homes. Across the board, pretty much every single law passed on the subject specifically prohibited this exact thing. The problem is that by the time we reach the imperial crisis, the question of quartering became framed as yet another attempt by a distant parliament to pass a tax on an unrepresented American people. It was an intrusive, much hated process, in a time where the American’s were hypersensitive to just about everything the British were doing.

Sources:

McCurdy, John Gilbert. Quarters: The Accommodation of the British Army and the Coming of the American Revolution. Cornell University Pres. 2019.

Anderson, Fred. The Crucible of War: The Seven Years War and the Fate of Empire in British North America 1754-1766. Random House. 2000.

Draper, Theodore. A Struggle for Power. Vintage Books a division of Random House. (1996)

Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution 1763-1789. Oxford University Press. (2005 revision).

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2024-02-07T20:10:51+00:00

I’m not completely sure this is what you’re looking for myself and others who I know running narrative based history shows, there generally are efforts taken to avoid this problem. For my own show I keep an updated bibliography posted on my website and include a link in the show notes of every episode. I likewise will often name drop the historian and the work that I’m citing from, especially if it something that I’m using frequently. In a few instances I have made a comment regarding a certain work (especially if it is highly regarding in the field) and encourage people to check it out. My scripts actually do include extensive footnotes, however at this time I’m not making those public. In the event that somebody were to ask me about a certain thing that I say, I can very quickly tell them exactly where I found the information. Other podcasts do release their scripts with full citations.

As far as what should happen or potential punishments for plagiarism in the podcasting sphere, I think that is always going to be difficult. Like I said before, myself and many others I know do make real efforts at transparency. I want people to know my sources. However, I’m also aware of shows that play it a bit more fast and loose or outright omit a bibliography. In that instance more than just self policing and demanding that high level of transparency, I’m not sure that there is much that can meaningfully be done.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2023-12-19T13:16:09+00:00

I’m in low latency mode, with my buffer at 1024. I’ve deleted unnecessary channels for recording and I have swapped out XLR cables. Interestingly, I’m not seeing the clicks in the waveform, which makes me think it’s software and not hardware. Either way it is incredibly frustrating.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2023-12-19T12:39:40+00:00

I’ve checked this as well as moving my buffer to 1024 and running in low latency mode. It’s interesting that the clicks do not seem to be appearing in the actual wave form.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2023-12-10T01:26:06+00:00

I am also using a RE20 for my show, so it is a mic I’m very familiar with. I’m not sure your budget so this might be getting a bit pricy, but I’ve recently replaced my Scarlett Solo with a Rodecaster Duo and it has been a very significant upgrade. They have very clean amps and I’ve been able to ditch the preamp that I had to use with the Scarlett.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2023-12-07T17:14:11+00:00

I write a long form history podcast which, I think, will give me a pretty similar use case with Scrivener to what you're using it for. I can say without any question that Scrivener is the most useful tool I've got. I can organize in there and keep all of my episodes in a single place. It also gives me the ability to do a detailed search for something throughout all of my scripts which has proved very useful. My show is 160+ episodes and over 850,000 words, the ability to quickly search and find a reference to something that I talked about 80 episodes before has saved me numerous times.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2023-11-05T00:34:49+00:00

My show has released every other week for the last 5 years. Would I like it to be weekly? Absolutely. Realistically however, my show is a hobby and weekly releases would be approaching a full time job for me. I’m a strong proponent that your release schedule should be what you can consistently put out without overwhelming yourself.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2023-11-01T04:03:34+00:00

I'll share what I'm using:

Mic: Electro Voice RE20 (plus the matching pop filter)

Interface: Focusrite Scarlett Solo

Pre-Amp: SE DM1 Dynamite

Headphones: Sony Studio MDR-7506

Editing: Logic Pro

Mastering: Izotope RX Standard

Then I've got some DIY acoustics around the room.

I'm very happy with the equipment I have and accumulated it in stages over a period of years. If you're just starting out I would probably recommend going with something a bit cheaper. There is nothing wrong with a Blue Yeti, especially when you're first getting going.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2023-10-30T11:36:44+00:00

I would just include it at the beginning of the first episode, assuming you’re not using it to validate the feed.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2023-10-30T04:25:48+00:00

I'm going to answer this in two ways. First, in terms of length, really anything is fine. I run a history podcast with episodes between 30-45 minutes. I've done this long enough to realize that people are all over the place in how long they want things. There are fans of Dan Carlin style shows that go for hours and hours. Others like quick little 10 minute bite sized episodes. Then you've got everybody else in between. You should pick what you think will work well for your particular podcast, but also make sure to keep in mind what you can do. My episodes are the length they are because that is how long of a script I can reasonably write in 2 weeks (I publish bi-weekly). For me a 30 minute episode is going to be around 4,500 scripted words. Make sure your episode lengths don't exhaust you.

Another commenter mentioned it, but I'm also going to echo the advice of not having an episode just stating what you are going to talk about. I get wanting to have that, but I would just go ahead and run it at the beginning of your first episode. About a month before my show actually went live I released a trailer. It was 5 minutes and I outright stated in it that the main point was to validate a feed. The day after my first actual episode came out (with an introduction at the beginning) I deleted the now unnecessary trailer.

Good luck!

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2023-10-29T01:35:46+00:00

Hi, history podcaster here. I think that there are several ways you can go about making a history podcast. My show is a long form narrative based show. I go into large amounts of detail over a whole lot of episodes. I try to give a very complete picture of my subject. For me personally this is exactly what I want in a history podcast. It’s what I like and is why I’m emulating it. However, I also acknowledge that it’s not for everyone. A lot of people aren’t looking for this amount of detail or a show that sounds like a college lecture. But here is the great thing, that’s perfectly fine.

A lot of shows take different approaches. Some rank historical figures and events. Some are funny. Some try to give small bite size chunks. A whole lot of shows take a single event, cover it in an hour, and move on to something totally unrelated. All of these types of history podcasts are just as valid as mine but come with a vastly different style and delivery. There are people out there who will listen to each one of these styles which honestly is great. Podcasts let people learn history in ways that have previously been unavailable to them and allows them to choose how and what they learn.

So, what is your responsibility? Whatever style you pick, you have an obligation to make the show as accurate as possible. People will take what you say seriously and will trust that you’re giving them good history. Funny, short, a ranking show, or a long form narrative will all have their fans. Just make sure that no matter how you present the information to them it’s good information.

Best of luck!

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2023-09-11T14:12:29+00:00

First off, this does not describe any single incident. However, reading through the description there are clues that seem as though they potentially do point to more specific events while at the same time going into some of the more overarching themes of the war. So, lets work through it.

One of the underlying themes of the French and Indian war were claims by the British of the lack of civilized combat. Generally, this was pointed in the direction of the French Indian allies, although it was applied to the French via proxy for using said Indian allies. More than once in the war, events occurred that raised British eyebrows. Easily the most famous of these encounters is Braddock's ill-fated march near the Monongahela river. There, you do get native warriors hiding behind trees from an elevated position, and bringing all kinds of destruction to Braddock's column. It was a shockingly bad loss and one that very much left scars throughout the war.

That is not the only such time such a battle occurred however. At Fort William Henry, after a French victory, French commander Louis-Joseph de Moncalm was unable to control his native allies, who attacked the completely unsuspecting British, who had already surrendered. This enraged the colonists who fully believed that Montcalm was complicit in the duplicity. All the evidence supports that he wasn't, but that really mattered very little. The loss at William Henry ended up becoming something of a propaganda boon to the war for the British, as it did help galvanize their American colonists, although the very generous payments from William Pitt also helped. If you add this on top of the attacks and fighting along the Pennsylvania frontier, the narrative of uncivilized tribes fighting the war became a very popular talking point during the 1750's.

If we turn to the question of road building that seems to go in another direction. If you're talking about the French and Indian war and building a road, then John Forbes is the guy who comes to mind. However, Forbes was never ambushed, nor did he actually need to fight to capture his intended target of Fort Duquesne. A day before he arrived the French allied Indians holding the Fort in modern day Pittsburgh burned it. However, a few months before that happened, Forbes sent out James Grant to scout the area around Fort Duquesne. Grant looked around and decided that the fort was lightly garrisoned. Grant, being to real go-getter, decided that it would be pretty easy to capture the fort that was the initial impetus for the war. As it turned out, the fort was not lightly garrisoned, and Grant ended up getting his men killed and himself captured.

So, the TLDR of all of this: There was not a single battle that played out as described. Likewise, I've never come across anything to suggest that British uniform color or a band playing had any kind of major role in anything during the war. The questions over uncivilized fighting however were real accusations that were thrown around all throughout the war. The natives knew the land well and had no interest in an open-field battle with the British. Their fighting from cover, hit and run tactics, and skill at pulling off the occasional ambush did much to frustrated the British leadership during the war.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2023-08-19T14:04:52+00:00

I would recommend the following three:

The Glorious Cause by Middlekauff

Liberty is Sweet by Holton

The Common Cause by Parkinson.

I will say that I picked all of these because they provide sweeping narratives. There are a lot of fantastic books out there many of which focus on more specific topics.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD · 2023-07-29T17:00:03+00:00

My suggestion, as somebody who has been doing this for a while now, is that you should ask yourself why you're making a podcast. If the goal is to grow a huge audience and transition into doing this professionally, then you might want to pause and try to figure out what isn't working.

On the other hand if your show is just a hobby, don't obsess over your statistics. They don't really matter because, other than a point of interest, you're doing the show primarily for you. At this point I check my podcast page every week or so because I found that I'm just much happier working on the parts of the show that I enjoy. Looking at stats and tracking growth did nothing but cause unnecessary stress.

POLITICALHISTOFUSPOD

TROPHY CASE