​​​​William McAllister​

Historical Books: Founding Myths & Revolutonary Mothers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Founding Myths is a book that can be used by teachers to help dispel many of the myths that surround America's founding. Stories such as Molly Pitcher, legends about Patrick Henry's famous quotes, and myths about the winter at Valley Forge are all disproved and the facts are brought to light. Perhaps more importantly, the reasons why they myths came about are examined to better illuminate the true behind the events and America's past.

 

Though the book itself is rather long to have a high school class read in the short amount of time that can be dedicated to the Revolution in the classroom, I still plan on using sections of the book from time to time to portray the most historically accurate information possible, and to lead the class to a more in-depth discussion about why these myths came about, and why they are important to, and important as a piece of American national identity.

 

Below is a short assessment of different sections of the book. They are divided up into “What we are told...” or what the typical story is about the incident or person in question, and “What we should say...” or what the truth of the matter is, and why it is important for the history of our nation, and to us as Americans.

 

 

Paul Revere

 

What we are told...

 

We are told basically what Longfellow's poem tells us, and from that we assume that Revere was a major player in the American revolution. Paul Revere is the one who told a nameless friend of his how to set up the lanterns and then went across the Charles to await the signal and ride off to warn every house and farm he came across that “the British were coming.” Slight modifications had been made when people are taught this lesson, chiefly that there were a few other riders that also performed Paul Revere's task, though they are often left by the wayside in favor of Paul Revere.

 

What we should say...

 

We should start with the fact that the British were already here, and that Paul Revere was only considered a major player in the American revolution many years after the revolution when historians told history as a collection of anecdotes. Only then did Revere fall neatly into the legacy of America. In actuality, Revere described his own ride in only a sentence when he wrote about it, and completely left out the use of lanterns, something that Longfellow capitalized on in his poem. Revere's ride was only one of many that he undertook for the better part of a year. In truth, the farmers were already ready to fight, but Revere's “historic ride” shadows the fact that the revolution in 1774 was the beginning, while Revere's ride bridges the gap to the outbreak of formal hostilities in 1775.

 

Molly Pitcher

 

What we are told...

 

We are told that Molly Pitcher was the perfect combination of the domestic and pubic sphere. Following her husband faithfully to the different battle fronts, she delivered water in her famed pitcher to wounded soldiers when every they called for it. When she saw her husband wounded while he was manning a cannon, she bravely took up the ramrod and proceeded to man the cannon, bringing the fight to the British with the bravery of any man. For this, she was rewarded by General Washington by becoming a non-commissioned officer.

 

What we should say...

 

For starters, Molly Pitcher never existed. There are anecdotes of women taking up arms and manning cannons from various battles, but none of them match Molly's specific story. While searching for the real Molly, there are two possible answers, but neither faithfully adheres to what we are told. The first is Margret Corbin, or Captain Molly, who actually fought in the battle of Fort Washington, not Monmouth, and the second is Mary Hayes McCauly who was reported as a drunken, mean old woman that never made mention of herbecoming a non-commissioned officer.. Each of these women were nothing like the genteel version of Molly that is being told. Captain Molly did indeed man a cannon after her husband was killed, and she herself suffered a arm disabling grapeshot wound. Her real name was “Dirty Kate” and she was a poor army camp follower that drank and swore, and later died of a syphilitic disease. To keep with a “pure” representation, Dirty Kate was transformed into Molly Pitcher, someone who fit a legendary narrative better.

 

 

Sam Adams

 

What we are told...

 

Sam Adams was a real firebrand. It was because of him, and only him, that we had a revolution in the first place. Sam was a man of the people, and he was so vocal in his protest that he stirred up rebellion where ever he went. He was the mastermind behind anything that was happening in Boston of the time. If any protest happened, Sam Adams surely had a part in it, if not orchestrated the entire event in the first place. He was a strong leader, and he hated the British so much that he was the first revolutionary.

 

What we should say...

 

First of all, Samuel Adams was not the sole reason for the revolution. In his own writings, Adams did not particularly like the violence that the Boston people were using as a means to strike back against the British. The revolution and its sentiments were so spread through out the common people that a single leader was not needed, or particularly capable, of orchestrating all the various protest. The reason why Adams is fingered as the “leader of the revolution” is actually a British reason. The British liked to view things as a top down model. With Adams as the leader, the British could easily have the revolutionary sentiment they saw growing fall into an organized pattern that they were used to, a monarchical model. In actuality, that was the exact model that Adams was fighting against. The revolution was one that was led by the various groups of people that participated in it. They didn't need or want a central leader, each group had their own reason to act.

 

Lexington and Concord

 

What we are told...

 

We are told that in the middle of the night, American farmers were awaken and prepared themselves in a minute to go out and fight the British. A small American militia went up against the big powerful redcoats, who fired first, and continued to fire into the backs of the fleeing militia. With the shot heard around the world, the British pushed the American's over the edge and started the American Revolution.

 

What we should say...

 

The original poem that this myth comes from was actually set in Concord. In time, the story was shifted from Concord to Lexington where the site was more hospitable to the David and Goliath myth that the American people at the time used to win “the war of words”, a propaganda victory, over the British. In Concord it was clear that the Americans were not the victim of the British, and it was in fact, the other way around. In Lexington the story is harder to confirm, hence why it serves as the perfect ground for the Americans being the “David.” By 1774, Massachusetts militias had already seized all political and military authority. Massachusetts had already overthrown the British government in the area, and was setting up for their defense. They ordered cannons, shot, and weapons and were preparing for future engagements against the British. The 1774 revolution is often forgot because of how successful it was, it was such a grass roots effort that there was no head to assign to it, so no easy way for it to be remembered.

 

 

The Winter at Valley Forge

 

What we are told...

 

We are told that heroic soldiers suffered through the worse winter in recorded history because their patriotic duty demanded it. It was such a bad winter, supplies were low, and disease was rampant, yet eight out of ten soldiers choose to stay the course, and in the following spring they came out with a new sense of patriotism and willingness to fight for liberty. Soldiers in the heart of Valley Forge were tempered through a crucible of nature that prepared them for anything that man (the British) could send at them.

 

What we should say...

 

First of all, the winter on record was actually quite mild at Valley Forge. Only on one day did the temperature fall below double digits. The soldiers did lack supplies, but instead of fighting through it with strength and honor they raided and pillaged near by Quaker homesteads. The men there were not heroes that enlisted on their own, but due to drafts, were actually men sent by more wealthy men to take their place. They did not fight their way through the effects of natures, they deserted and mutinied in droves. There was a horrible winter on record, but it was in New Jersey at a site that also had the distinction of being one of the worse mutinies on record. That site would hardly fit the historic myth of the soldiers fighting against nature, so the winter was moved to a better site, and the major problems fell away to create a “presentable” narrative.

 

Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence

 

What we are told...

 

Tomas Jefferson was a brilliant mind that penned the declaration, by himself, under candle light. He would go through many revisions, but only a mind like his was able to think up the amazing and innovative ideas that were expressed in the Constitution. Tomas Fleming stated that Jefferson was too modest when he said that the Constitution was “of an American mind” and that only a brilliant man could write such a brilliant document. Jefferson promised equality for everyone, despite race or color, but it wouldn't be for years, once America was settled, that his dream could be realized.

 

What we should say...

 

At the time of the Declaration's writing, it wasn't even that recognizable to the average person. Since the Continental Congress met in secret, the author of the Declaration was not even known to the people. The Virginia Declaration was actually much more widely quoted, and it was written by George Mason. The other state declarations that came after the Declaration of Independence never quoted it, yet four of them made reference to the Virginia Declaration. The language and “American mind” that Fleming spoke of also wasn't Jefferson's alone. Even the typical farmer of the time, though they would not have read it, could quote The Second Trieste of Government by Locke. Jefferson was set as leader of the group that would write and agree upon the many versions of the Declaration of Independence before they came to the one they would go with, and only later, when Federalist in line with Jefferson's thinking saw opportunity to advance their own political agenda, did Jefferson become idolized as the writer of the Declaration. Adam was angry with Jefferson playing into this notion as him as the sole writer. Years later Lincoln would remake Jefferson's words into promising equality for everyone, including slaves, while at the time in 1776, no man would have dared to tell Virginia, one of the largest slave holding states, that whites and blacks were equal.

 

Founding Fathers, Found Chic.

 

What we are told...

 

We are told that the founding fathers are heroes and gods amongst men. Their sheer brilliance blinds any historical gaze we might cast back upon them. Defining the founding father's has become a bit of a trick. It could be any general, but then it would lack politicians. It could be any one of the Constitution signers, but then we would require people to learn the intricate details about too many people. Instead it has been boiled down to a key “great” men that we learn about, ones that have central roles in the revolution.

 

What we should say...

 

Though the people that we learn about did have roles in the revolution, they were by no means central to the revolution. Common farmers, without help from the great players, were the first to overthrow the British government. Poor men and boys fought the revolution, without them, the founders may well have been hanged. If not for the people's clamoring for independence, Congress would not have passed the Declaration. Without the “founding sisters” American society would have never survived the war. Without talking about slavery in the south and the Indians in the West, key events in the revolution cannot be understood. All of these factors existed outside of the founding fathers, and were in fact, more central to the revolution. We cannot mistake fame for significance.

 

Patrick Henry

 

What we are told...

 

We are told that Patrick Henry gave a rousing speech that called the colonist to arms against the British after they had done everything in their power to avoid a conflict, and only as a last measure, turning to violence as a means to achieve their noble goals.

 

What we should say...

 

For starters, the words that we know as Henry's speech are, at best, just a recollection of the general idea of what was said. Henry was a orator, not a writer, and he didn't leave and written record of what he said. All that the basic understanding of the “liberty or death” speech is based on is what a person who was there remembers the speech was, and that record is dubious at best. We do have one record of the speech that was written at the time, and the account is plausible though laced with xenophobia. Henry himself, like many other men, coveted Indian land and feared slave uprisings, the likes of which happened one month after Henry had given his “liberty or death” speech. Due to this sentiment it would be logical that Henry wanted the British out of the way to expand westwards.

Henry was also much more of a logical arguer instead of the impassioned patriot that is commonly believed. He would be willing to step down from his position when he overstepped his bounds, like when he was declared treasonous by the house speaker. He didn't stand up and defy the claim, he quickly backed down and protected himself.

 

 

Bunker Hill

 

What we are told...

 

We are told that during the battle at Bunker Hill in Boston, the soldiers were told many things, like “fire low” and “Pick off the commanders.” The most commonly repeated of the things that were supposedly said by Putnam was “Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes.” This meant that the revolution was a personal war, man to man, in close proximity. The revolution was a “cozy” affair, one that was as romantic and personal as the men who fought in it. The personal notion of the revolutionary war was the perfect start for a new country.

 

What we should say...

 

First of all, that command was not new to the revolution. It had been sued in previous wars, and was not to be taken literally. It was used by commanders to get control over their men, and to tell their men to hold fire. If a soldier waited until they could see their whites of the enemy's eyes, they would already be overrun. That command did happen at Waxhaws in South Carolina. An American commander ordered his men not to fire until the British were almost upon them. After the single volley that the American's got off they were over run. The close range fire was not enough to stop the British advance.

In fact the personal notion of the revolutionary war doesn't hold up at all. A soldier seldom got to see the whites of their enemy's eyes, and if they were killed in battle, it most likely happened due to cannon or musket fire from the general direction of the enemy side, or even more probable, disease and other factors outside of the battle. While the soldiers at Bunker Hill did wait until the British were at close range, about 100 yards, they were by no means close enough to discern the whites of their eyes.

Prescott, not Putnam may have been the commander at Bunker Hill as well, but that doesn't get to the core point of why American's believe in the “Whites of their eyes” saying. By keeping it in the core narrative, Americans manage to justify and celebrate the inherent killing that comes in war by making it a personal struggle, not a mass slaughter like it was.

 

Patriotic Slaves

 

What we are told...

 

We are told that the revolutionary war was the first step on a long road to freedom for slaves. That great men like Washington were willing to offer freedom to slaves in return for service in the army, and that slaves were willing to fight for the patriotic cause. Even bigots were turned from their ways when faced with former slaves acting for the goo of the nation, and that the spirit of America is one that binds everyone together, regardless of race. In the wake of the revolution, whites and blacks pulled together to build a whole new world.

 

What we should say...

 

In actuality, Washington never issued an order to free any slaves that fought in the revolution, and there was never an integrated regiment like the one in The Patriot. Washington actally took away the order to allow blacks to fight in the army, and only after a shortage of man power, did he change his order to allow freed blacks to fight. In fact, when slaves were mentioned in regards to the revolution, it was only in terms of how much of a loss they caused to their white masters. White southerns were unwilling to militarize their slaves in fear that their property might be damaged. Washington did issue on order in regards to slaves, but that was promising a slave to any white man who signed up and fought in the army.

The narrative of the black soldier in the revolution came mostly from abolitionist that sought to make patriotic blacks to serve their cause of abolition. In South Carolina where there is no record of blacks signing up in the army, historians instead focused on the myth of the “happy slave,” saying that while the slaves had many opportunities to run during the heavily British controlled time, they chose to instead stay alongside of their masters and defend their home. More blacks actually fought with the British then with the Americans, the white masters in America where too afraid to arm their slaves.

Both sides of the story regarding slaves, the north and the south, have their problems as well. In the north slaves being allowed in the army was a careful balance of needing troops without offering freedom to the slaves. In the south, freedom for the slaves, or arming them, was simply not an option. More slaves fled to the north during the revolution then did during the civil war, yet the underground railroad is more prominent then black flight in the revolution. The British were tactfully the ones that offered freedom to the slaves, transporting many to Canada or to England.

 

Brutal British

 

What we are told...

 

We are told that the British were brutal monsters. They were willing to massacre and slaughter Americans, soldiers and civilians alike, to win the war. They were titanic monsters in red coats, and that when we were fighting them we were not fighting people so much as fighting evil incarnate.

 

What we should say...

 

The idea of British cruelty comes from Waxhaws, but it was not the British that committed the slaughter of American prisoners, it was the Americans that enlisted with the British that committed it. British commanders responded with the cry of, “No irregulars” basically stating that they wanted soldiers that would listen, and not militia like the Americans who had committed the slaughter. The story was changed from Americans causing the slaughter to the British to better fit with the narrative of “foreigners” causing the strife during the revolution. In actuality, the war in the south was closer to a civil war, both partisan sides fighting thinking that they were defending their home country.

When the atrocities of the Americans were mentioned in history, they were hardly the work of true Americans. Instead, it was the illiterate “Scots and Irish” that called their weapons by pet names, and could scarcely recall a line from Common Sense. In the good v. evil narrative that has been laid over the revolutionary war, it is far more convenient to attribute the evil acts done to the invaders in redcoats, and to utterly ignore or write off and atrocities done by ones own side.

 

The Final Battle of Yorktown

 

What we are told...

 

After the battle of Yorktown, General Cornwallis surrendered to General Washington and proclaimed, “Oh, god, it is all over.” With that the end of the revolutionary war came and America was placed firmly in control of her own destiny. As Hakim wrote, “David has licked Goliath, the superpower has been defeated by the upstart colonies.”

 

What we should say...

 

The war was truthfully far from over. Washington called on Congress to raise more troops for what he thought would be a redoubled effort from the British in the wake of their loss. The British and French continued to battle out at sea, and even when the crown offered to recognize the thirteen colonies, Washington refused until a binding peace declaration was signed. On August 4th, 1782 the crown was willing to sign a peace treaty, but Washington again did not accept. Hearing that one of the main “pushers” for peace had died, Washington was suspicious. For a year and a half after Yorktown, Washington was still suspicious of any offer of peace from the British. He realized that the hold that England still had was strong, and that the victory of the Americans was tenuous at best. More soldiers died after the battle at Yorktown then did the first 12 month of the revolutionary war, warfare continued on all fronts. The reasons we don't talk about the “after affairs” of Yorktown are because we like our stories with a neat opening and closing, we don't like to the civil war in the south during the revolution, and we remain blind to the global nature of the American revolution.

That last point is especially important. The global nature of the revolution is often overlooked. The British were more willing to sign a peace treaty with the colonies if that meant that they could focus their attention on their other colonies. France, Russia, and other European nations were trying to pull colonies away from each other and set up their own colonial power bases. Seeing America in this global context removes the “self determination” from the American narrative, and instead places America as a pawn in the global politics of the time.

 

March of the American People

 

What we are told...

 

We are told that with one perfect war, there was created one perfect nation, and that the people in the nation were filled with hope and optimism for the future. Freed from the shackles of the east, white Americans were free to expand west, causing the United States to grown and thrive. The Revolution was simply a war for independence.

 

What we should say...

 

The Revolution was both a war for independence and a war of conquest. Colonist were angry at the British declaration to cut off western expansion to wealthy colonist. During the revolution all Indian nations east of the Mississippi fought, on one side or the other, during the revolution, with the majority siding on the British side. Not only did the nations fight against the British or the Colonies, but they also fought amongst each other. Americans invaded and destroyed Indian homes, causing certain nations to side with the English, while at the same time, in the south, Cherokees fought their own war of independence during the Revolution. They would raid American settlements, causing the armed Americans to turn their attention from the British and fight against the Indian Nations. The revolutionary war not only brought the Americans and Indians to more conflict, but better prepared the later American settlers to expand westward. The American revolution launched the country into its expansion westward, but at the expense of the Indian nations that it trampled over going west.

 

What does it all mean?

 

If there is anything that we as teachers can take away from the book Founding Myths is that the established narratives of our history has to be questioned. We have to question the narratives in order to present the best, factual information that we can to our students, while at the same time helping them to understand why these myths came about and what purposethey served.