Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death Or How About The Truth?

MrPresident

Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
Messages
8,511
Location
The Prosperous Part of the EU
There are a lot of myths surrounding the American war for independence (or the revolutionary wars). Often these myths are still in American school books. After reading the following I hope some people can begin to distinguish between fact and fiction. Or at least stop bringing it up whenever I meet an American. Damn colonists. Anyway.....

• The Battle Of Bunker Hill did not take place on Bunker Hill but the nearby Breed's Hill.

• A common misconception is that the Americans were fighting to secure freedom. They weren't. They were fighting to preserve it. It is true that they didn't have a representative in Parliament but consider the fact that large thriving cities such as Liverpool and Manchester had no directly elected Member of Parliament. A lot is said about the taxes colonists were forced to pay despite this lack of representation. However the average American, in the 1760s, paid about sixpence a year in tax. This is compared to the average Briton who paid 25 shillings. That was 50 times as much. And in any case, the Americans seldom paid their taxes. The Townshend duties raised just 295 pounds and cost 170,000 pounds to implement. The Stamp Act duties were never collected at all. And finally the principle aim of these revenue-raising measures was to fund the protection of the colonies. It is hardly beyond reason to expect the colonists to make a contribution towards the cost of their own defence.

• Now onto the famous quotes.
- 'Taxation without representation is tyranny'.
James Otis, the person this phrase is commonly attributed too, appears not to have said any such thing. These famous words were not ascribed to him until 1820, nearly 40 years after he died.
- 'If this be treason, make the most of it'
Patrick Henry is supposed to have made this defiant cry in the Virginia House of Burgesses in May 1765. However the clerk of the convention made no notes of Henry's speech and none of those present gave any hint in their correspondence that Henry's remarks had been particularly electrifying that day. According to one surviving eyewitness account - written by a French hydrologist - Henry did make some intemperate remarks, but, far from being defiant, he immediately apologised to the House of Burgesses if 'the heat of passion might have led him to have said something more than he intended'. In fact his brave and eloquent challenge to the monarchy was invented 41 years later by a biographer named William Wirt, who had never met, seen or heard him. Thomas Jefferson, who was there, offered the opinion that Wirt's effort was 'a poor book, written in bad taste, and gives an imperfect idea of Patrick Henry'. Also there is no evidence that Henry uttered the other famous quote 'I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death'.

• The Boston 'massacre'. The mythical image of this is that British Redcoats attacked a small, startled gathering of colonials in broad daylight. While it is true that 5 colonists died it did not happen anything like that. For a start it was at night. 20 British soldiers were repeatedly taunted, jostled, pelted with stones and other missiles and generally menaced by a drunken, ugly and very much larger mob. By the standards of the day, the British troops were eminently justified in replying with fire. This is shown by the fact that John Adams defending them at trial securing the acquittal of all but two of them; the convicted pair had their thumbs branded, a light punishment in a murder trial.

• The story of Betsy Ross and the creation of the first American flag. The story goes that George Washington entered Mrs Ross's upholstery shop in Philadelphia in 1776, showed her a rough sketch of a flag and asked her to whip up something suitable for a new nation. However this story was not voiced until 96 years after the supposed event by one of her grandchildren. It has never been substantiated. However as common sense would tell us George Washington had rather more pressing matters that finding a seamstress for a national flag. In any case, at the time of thos story America was still flying the Grand Union flag, a banner that had alternating red and white stripes like the modern American flag, but contained a Union Jack where the stars now go. Not until June 1777 did Congress replace the Union Jack with stars. But even then, such were the emotional tires to Britain, many flag makers arranged the stars in a Union Jack pattern.

Now thats a history lesson.
 
Sounds like somebody has a case of sore loserdom! But really, everything mentioned is true.

Another myth that I have worked hard to rectify is the idea that the Continentals fought "guerilla style" against the British, when in fact they fought using the same linear tactics practiced by all European Armies of the day. This is why the British won so many battles, since their infantry was second to none in dicipline, training, and experience. This brings up George Washington's contribution to the war. GW was certainly no military genius. His talents lay in keeping his army together and intact, while looking for the enemy's weak spot. When he fought Lord Howe at Brooklyn Heights, Washington recieved a severe beating, but he kept what was left of his force together long enough to score vistories at Treton and Princeton. Eventually, with the help of the Prussian Baron Von Steuben, Washington's troops acquired the skills and battle experience they needed to face the British. Washington's skills as a general also improved. The last large-scale battle fought in the North, Monmouth Courthouse, he nearly destroyed the British Army. Washington had 500 men build fires and set up tents in a defensible position, all the while scraping tools together so that the British would think that the continentals were digging entrenchments. But Washington had secretly moved his army onto the flank of Sir Henry Clinton's army and attacked! Only the dicipline of the British soldiers forced the battle to be fought to a draw.
 
Is it a history lesson? I'm not so sure:

The stuff about Bunker Hill, the flag and the quotes is all fascinating stuff. Sounds an awful lot like the old story about Drake refusing to intercept the Armada until he had finished a game of bowls, or Nelson saying "kismet" as opposed to "kiss me" on his death bed, or British propaganda about how the Battle of Mons saved civilization, or like Clive's cover story for his fraudulent seizure of vast parts of India under false pretences.

Or, much like the crap that we Canadians get fed about how we "won the war of 1812," or the stuff about how we treated our Indians better, or the stuff about how Canadians were "shock troops" in WWI (its really a better name for "politically expendable,") or the idea that Lious Riel - hanged as a traitor - should now be considered a father of Confederation.

In other words, the Americans have a few myths, just like everybody else. So what?

Surely you know that such myths and falsehoods exist in British history, so what purpose does it serve to selectively target similar Americanisms?

The Boston Massacre: well, yes, quite.

As you note, future U.S. President John Adams defended the soldiers and secured acquittals from a jury of Massachusetts men for all but two of them (namely the two had actually broken orders to commence firing). But - as Adams himself said when the verdicts arrived - the two soldiers HAD committed manslaughter and violated orders in doing so. Hey, that's a crime!

Did some Americans make propaganda use of this? No doubt. But then, some Britons got a little hotheaded, too, which is why there was a war. There has been a moment now and again when I wished the Empire was still one big happy family. But George III and North did it in, not the Yankees. The fact that early rebel literature frequently refers to themselves as the loyalists and George III the traitor should tell you something.

Also, by the way, I'm fairly sure your reference to taxes also refers to what we might today call "federal tax." Remember that local colonies with legislatures also had their own taxes that would not normally be reported with Imperial statistics. And if Jean Chretien ever woke up one morning and told me I was billeting a soldier in my house, by law, at my expense, to help suppress tax cheats, I'd run for my musket, too.

R.III
 
Not all tales from the Revolution are negative ones. One story I heard said that an American soldier found some dogs and presented them to Gen. Washington. It turned out that the dogs were Lord Howe's prize fox-hunting dogs. GW, gentlemanly aristocrat that he was, sent the dogs over under a flag of truce. Howe was relieved to have his doggies back and sent a note of thanks back to Washington.
 
The Breed's Bunker thing is covered in school. College classes cover the tax issues and the massacre. The quotes are new on me, but not surprising. I wonder if Ceaser really said, "The die is cast" as he crossed the Rubicon.

The Townshend duties raised just 295 pounds and cost 170,000 pounds to implement

:lol: That's worse than a $700 hammer! The English should have been the ones revolting ;) .

Lets face it, you send over the extremists, malcontents, adventurers, and criminals and you are going to get some strange notions. Seems to have worked out well enough in the end though. ;)
 
"Remember that local colonies with legislatures also had their own taxes"

What sort of taxes were these? Because there wasn't an income tax in America till much later. And the common tax at that time was a tariff which can only be placed at the national level.
 
My dad should read this thread - he did American History as his degree but only got a third class as he was permanently pissed! :beer:

Everytime I ask him a question on this sort of stuff he just says "Oh, that's not my period".

:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by MrPresident
"Remember that local colonies with legislatures also had their own taxes"

What sort of taxes were these? Because there wasn't an income tax in America till much later. And the common tax at that time was a tariff which can only be placed at the national level.

Says who? Tariffs can be imposed at any level by a competent (or incompetent) authority. I don't know any figures, but I'm sure the individual colonies all had a variety of tariffs, stamp duties etc on lots of things. Even today, the states have considerable autonomy in indirect taxes.
 
MrPresident, all countries develop myths about their pasts and they teach them in their schools. That's the difference between identity history (which, despite its name, is really propaganda) and real History (capital "H"). Here's a link to a quiz I did on another less explored aspect of the American Revolution I did a few months back.
 
Originally posted by MrPresident
The mythical image of this is that British Redcoats attacked a small, startled gathering of colonials in broad daylight. While it is true that 5 colonists died it did not happen anything like that. For a start it was at night. 20 British soldiers were repeatedly taunted, jostled, pelted with stones and other missiles and generally menaced by a drunken, ugly and very much larger mob. By the standards of the day, the British troops were eminently justified in replying with fire.

I suppose British soldiers were also justified in shooting Indian protesters in the early 20th century? :rolleyes:

I'm nobody to say that there's never been a historical inaccuracy, but you should at least admit that the British army has kept it's fingers on the triggers when it certainly didn't need to...
 
MrPres, I think you have confused Americana with History, there is a difference you know. ;)

We have many tales of early America that are not true, but fun to tell, like Johhny Appelseed, the story of Washington and the Cheery tree, ect.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe


I suppose British soldiers were also justified in shooting Indian protesters in the early 20th century? :rolleyes:

I'm nobody to say that there's never been a historical inaccuracy, but you should at least admit that the British army has kept it's fingers on the triggers when it certainly didn't need to...

You can go more recent than that for even the most disciplined armies - Kent State in the US or Bloody Sunday in the UK. Most armies have a few things in their locker room that they are not proud of.

It must be true that every country creates and perpetuates myths designed to glorify that country - most are done through lack of research or carelessness, and the 9th century seems to have been a time when such myths popped up all over the place.

For example, I was once in a French school (on an exchange trip) learning about the Napoleonic Wars. Interestingly (or at least to me) when it came to the battle of Trafalgar, the french history books being used completely ignored the Spanish ships who fought on the french side, thus implying that the french were outnumbered, instead of having numerical superiority.

I'm sure there are an equal number of examples in British, American and other histories of such distortions, and I have found that it is quite fun trying to pick them out.

The worst offenders in the west seem to be Hollywood producers, who seem convinced that if the hero isn't American then the folks in Pigs Knuckle, Arkansas won't watch the film. Solution - change the nationality of the protaganists. Personally I think that's downright insulting to the great American public!

Fortunately, deliberate falsification of history seems to be confined to totalitarian regimes and extreme religious groups, but as a number of discussions on here have shown, eternal vigilance is required.
 
I wasn't criticising anyone I was just pointing out that these so-called facts about American history are in fact myths. I never said that this was unique to America and I am surprised that some of you thought I had (at least give me some degree of intelligence). I am just pointing them out, that is all. Rememeber information is power.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe


I suppose British soldiers were also justified in shooting Indian protesters in the early 20th century? :rolleyes:

I'm nobody to say that there's never been a historical inaccuracy, but you should at least admit that the British army has kept it's fingers on the triggers when it certainly didn't need to...

That isn't what the thread was about. He doesn't need to admit anything because this wasn't some kind of attack on America. Actually everything he said is accurate to my knowledge, excepting the quote stuff which I can neither confirm nor deny.

From some of what I have read, there were agitators in the mob who were trying to get the British to fire because of how it would look. "Sons of Liberty" I believe they were called.

Somebody else mentioned Johnny Appleseed, and while he may not have been anything like the myth, there was a real person who did plant apple trees all over the place. I doubt he used a pot for a hat though. ;)
 
Originally posted by knowltok2
Somebody else mentioned Johnny Appleseed, and while he may not have been anything like the myth, there was a real person who did plant apple trees all over the place. I doubt he used a pot for a hat though. ;)
Yes, there was a real Johnny Appleseed. His name was John Chapman and he really did plant apple trees, but i'm not sure how much of the myth surrounding him is true.
 
Back
Top Bottom