According to the video, how did the Seven Years War contribute to the colonial conflict with Britain that would lead to the American Revolution? Be detailed and specific.
According to the video, the Seven Years War contributed to the colonial conflict with Britain because American colonists were forced to fight for imperial interests without regard for their own interests. Techniques included impressment, or forcing colonists to serve as reserve soldiers, forcing colonists to provide free room and board to soldiers, and compelling colonist to supply and fund the British war that supported British interests. In the Seven Years War, the British treated the colonists as though they were nothing more than British assets, under British control. The colonists were used to their autonomy, and the colonial militias, which were run very differently from the British military, who did not recognize the colonial autonomy.

From chapter 6 (first two sections): How does the textbook explain the roots of colonial conflict after 1763? Why did resistance against British authority continue despite the repeal of the Stamp Act?
The Schaller textbook explains the roots of colonial conflict after 1763 as being due to the imposition of taxes and regulations by Britain that were only a burden and hardship. In exchange for the payment of taxes, colonists faced trade restrictions and complexity. There were no actual benefits for the American colonists. Resistance to British authority continued despite the repeal of the Stamp Act because it was the imposition of authority which was the problem, and not the manifestation of that power through such entitled burdens as the Stamp Act. The very idea that Britain had that sort of authority over colonial Americans was the issue, and the conflict was the fact that colonists felt that they were self-determined and self-sustaining, and should not be subjected to the forced rule of the British.

From chapter 6 (“Consumer Resistance”): What exactly does the title of this section (“Consumer Resistance”) mean? Be specific and provide details.
The title of Chapter 6, Consumer Resistance, refers to the fact that Britain was the source of imported goods, and the source of authority over business and everyday life. The taxation of tea, which was a common imported good, represented that which the colonists which to resist- unnecessary taxation and imposition of unilateral rules that interfered with everyday things, even having a cup of tea. This resistance at the consumer level fueled resistance at the national level. Americans did not want to be told who they could buy from, what they would be paid for trade goods, and then taxed for their trouble.

From chapter 6 (last two sections): How did resistance to British authority evolve into full-blown revolution, and then the movement for independence? Based on your reading of the chapter, highlight in your answer what you consider to be the main factors in these developments.
Resistance to British authority evolved into full-blown revolution and the movement for independence because the ancestors of the Puritans and other religious groups, who had come to the New World for religious self-determination, saw the same application of this philosophy to their governance and control of everyday life. Just like they did not need the Vatican or high-ranking church official to inform their relationship with God, early colonial Americans did not need a monarchy to define how they would do business and interact with one another to determine their own destiny. Most of the population was disconnected from Britain; their family and their societal values came from America.

From chapter 7 (first two sections): How did ideology, particularly the ideas of republicanism, affect U.S. government and military authority during the American Revolution?
Ideology, particularly the ideas of republicanism, affected the U.S. government and military authority during the American Revolution because it provided the source of moral authority over themselves, and the higher principles of liberty and equality (at least, liberty and equality for white male property owners). During the Seven Years War, the mismatched expectations of British military authorities and colonial obedience became clear, but in the Revolutionary War these had developed into the ideologies which separated the sides of the conflict- loyalty to the monarchy, versus rebelling for a sovereign republic. It was the driving philosophy for the Americans, and for each of the states. Unfortunately, it resulted in difficulties in managing national interests, such as payment of veterans and other issues, because the federal government had so little authority.

From chapter 7 (“Securing Independence”): According to this textbook, how did the United States “secure independence”? And how did divisions inside the United States shape the course of the Revolutionary War?
According to the Schaller textbook, the United States secured independence by fighting for it, and convincing enemies of the British to target the British at the same time. Schaller thinks that rather than strategy or advantage, Americans colonial armies simply had to outlast the British, who had high costs of participation. The divisions inside the United States helped shape the course of the Revolution, because loyalists and Indians mostly sided with the British. The loyalists were offered new settlements in the former French colony which was now Canada after the Revolution, essentially creating a new English speaking, British sourced colony which helped to increase the population of loyal subjects in relation to the French-Canadians.

From the primary source: In Common Sense, what specific arguments did Thomas Paine give for independence? How exactly were those arguments connected to his critique of monarchy? Base your answer on your analysis of this primary source document, not outside research.
The specific arguments that Thomas Paine gave for independence were about the purpose of government to protect society from itself, the basis for determining good government, and the need for self-realization of governance as arising from those who would be governed. Paine provided a religious argument that monarchy is an abomination of God’s will, and hereditary succession is further a disaster. This is because the fitness of the children cannot be determined by the parents. Paine used examples from the Old Testament of the Bible to point to specific stories that supported his point. Paine also made an analogy regarding people who end up together on a deserted island, and become a self-sufficient society. Paine points out that America did not need Britain, and that it would be better able to serve its interests without the burden of British greed. Paine also points out that by uniting, the colonies can get title to the Indian territory to the west of the current borders, which were determined by, and for, Britain. The last argument was that for American to thrive, it needed to be a country that could make its own decisions, rather than a poor, distant colony of Britain. The formation of international relationships was needed for American to achieve certain goals.