10 American Founding Myths

[@CynicalHistorian]

Thanks for watching! Please consider supporting the channel by buying merch: teespring.com/stores/the-cynical-historian Or by donating to my Patreon: www.patreon.com/CynicalHistorian Click "read more" for related episodes and bibliography. First some errata: Washington first acknowledged the name "town-destroyer" in 1755 b/c of his great-grandfather and Charles Brant later applied the name to the Sullivan Expedition (thx TheAlexSchmidt) related videos: • 3:18 unitarians: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3Obp5qaiJ2cobc • 4:45 2nd great awakening: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZnLaeX-Ipr1mh80 • 9:07 England vs. France: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bXm9hXijm9F-oJY • 9:07 Britain vs. France: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJrXZptvmplkjtE • 13:11 Lost cause myth: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3aymYt8atGBnbM • 13:41 Nationalism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i3i7l5msec-Se5o • 17:40 How revolutionary? kzbin.info/www/bejne/goPHnquVjpljr9k • 19:11 US influence on French Revolution: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oWepnn2thK9kqMk • 24:01 Sectional Crisis lecture: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3bRip5orcx4f9E • 27:54 Neoliberalism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oXPTZ2yIlLBkl5I *Bibliography* David Armitage, “The Declaration of Independence and International Law,” _William and Mary Quarterly_ 59 (January 2002): 39-64. www.jstor.org/stable/3491637 Bernard Bailyn, _The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution_ (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2017). amzn.to/3SSu5Bp Steven K. Green, _Inventing a Christian America: The Myth of the Religious Founding_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). amzn.to/38DvnxC Michael D. Hattem, “The Historiography of the American Revolution,” _Journal of the American Revolution_ (27 August 2013). allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/historiography-of-american-revolution/ Gwenda Morgan, _The Debate on the American Revolution_ (Manchester, N.York: Manchester University Press, 2007). amzn.to/38Bn7hW Andrew M. Schocket, _Fighting over the Founders: How We Remember the American Revolution_ (New York: New York University Press, 2015). amzn.to/2NQV7b3 _A Companion to the American Revolution,_ eds. Jack P. Greene and J.R. Pole (New York: Blackwell Publishers, 2000). amzn.to/2VMs4s0 _Myth America: Historians Take On the Biggest Legends and Lies About Our Past,_ edited by Kevin M. Kruse and Julian E. Zelizer (New York: Basic Books, 2022). amzn.to/3J5XsNP

[@mothermovementa]

AMERICANS need to watch this the most

[@CynicalHistorian]

It was very kind and considerate of Boston to make tea for the fishes. Britain just wanted it all for themselves!

[@RichFlemingRealtor]

Thanks so much for this and your other videos. I appreciate that you continue to educate despite the social media hate you often receive from ideologues.

[@robertjarman3703]

There were 27 amendments and not 26. The 18th still counts as a change even if repealed

[@CynicalHistorian]

@@robertjarman3703 I was indeed referring to the 18th as no longer existing. 21st amendment is the best amendment

[@pavelnadolski]

The Pledge of Allegiance should be dropped in favor of reciting the Preamble to the Constitution. The Pledge demands obedience without questioning while the Preamble is a reminder of what the purpose of our republic is.

[@Eodasa05]

absolutely

[@jackthorton10]

Yeah… Yeah!!!! That works a lot better than a pledge

[@CynicalHistorian]

It could even be sung, like here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/haLZfZxtpr-Sr7c

[@jakeluffman2186]

Absolutely. Unfortunately it won't happen anytime soon because "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union" sounds too s0ciALiSt

[@rickrocklobos6331]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[@MFLuder-me1vn]

One thing that I think should be emphasized more was how restricted voting was in the early decades of the United States. In elections up to Jacksonian democracy presidential elections involved something like only 5% of the population eligible to vote at most.

[@CynicalHistorian]

Yeah, I've gotta move quickly. Thanks for adding detail though. It's always appreciated

[@phunkracy]

Oh, that's bad... Worse than British and Polish, I believe.

[@griffinharp1106]

Georgia was actually the first state to give non-landowning whites the vote Same year the constitution was ratified I believe Pretty interesting stuff

[@dawoifee]

@@phunkracy Yes, in the PLC at some point of its existence about 10% of the population were allowed to vote. Also interesting in Austria (Cisleithania) in the 1900s almost all ethnicities were represented in the parliament, except the Roma maybe, while at the same time no black person sat in Congress.

[@BradyPostma]

​@@phunkracy- Worse than British? I'm under the impression that both were bad, but British was worse. They had similar land requirements for voting, but land was more scarce in Old Britannia. Am I under a misconception?

[@phoenixshadow6633]

Myth 11: The early Presidents did not have rap battles during cabinet meetings.

[@mjvajda]

Myth 12: the American War for Independence was not won by Ben Franklin, George Washington, and George Washington’s Horse.

[@SidheKnight]

Myth 13: The American revolutionaries were not aided by a rooftop-hopping half-mohawk assassin wearing a white hood and a hidden blade.

[@CaptCKernel]

Cabinet meeting rap battles isn't NOT in the history books....

[@thelanktheist2626]

The way this comment was framed makes it seem like the founding fathers DID, in fact, have rap battles in Cabinet Meetings.

[@Shlumbus69]

Myth 15: some people think the founding fathers did not have rap battles, that is not the case.

[@nobody8328]

So, you're not even going to mention the guy that gave Jefferson the first draft of the declaration and the constitution, as well as single handedly defeated the Brittish? George Santos never gets credit for all of his contributions to humanity...

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

George Santos is based I wonder why people dislike him so much 🤔 I mean he tells the truth!

[@nobody8328]

@caseclosed9342 has anyone ever actually seen them in the same room, though? 🤔

[@Karen-pk3uv]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@curtisthomas2670]

Santos stole them from the Iroquois Confederacy after single handedly defeating all its warriors

[@person3070]

@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI Absolutely. He is a Jew-ish person, if you know what he means....

[@SunflowerSocialist]

Myth: The Founding fathers were exemplars of level headed, sober leadership. They were DEFINITELY NOT SOBER.

[@eldorados_lost_searcher]

The receipts are public record.

[@SunflowerSocialist]

@@eldorados_lost_searcher and they make a college frat party look like an AA meeting

[@SunflowerSocialist]

Also worth mentioning that the boozing was in part a motivation for the revolution when you consider it. The sugar act was essentially an import restriction on molasses needed for rum production (basically barring the colonies from buying cheaper sugar and molasses from French or Spanish colonies). Also the opposition to the Townsend acts eventually culminated in a riot when John Hancock’s ship carrying barrels of Madiera wine was confiscated by British authorities for violating import duties.

[@skybluskyblueify]

Jefferson was very sensitive and had trouble admitting he was wrong. See: his interpretation of the French revolution.

[@tommonk7651]

Hey, it's hot in Philly in the summer....😆

[@theCommentDevil]

Myth 11: George Washington had the Founding Titan and had to step away from the presidency due to Ymir's curse

[@simpslayer7839]

Attack on Titan reference

[@PMickeyDee]

But did he have the voice?

[@llomack12]

😂😂😂

[@aurora.the.explorer]

Falsehood! Ban this traitor!

[@onlyDoti]

Myth???? we know it’s real

[@kuvasz5252]

My favorite quote from the Founding Fathers. "A standing army is like a standing member. It's an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure." Elbridge Gerry - Constitutional Convention (1787)

[@Osric24]

Brilliant comparison xD

[@vulcanhumor]

For anyone like me who doubted...nope, it's a legit quote.

[@grepora]

The term gerrymandering is named in his honor (or dishonor).

[@patriceesela5000]

🤯

[@dianedelauri642]

Gerrymandering as in Gerrymanding😂😂

[@johnwu8916]

What do you mean that America's founding isn't a simple, clean narrative without any nuance?! This is unacceptable. You're making it impossible for people to understand our founding without actually reading books and learning about it now?! 😀

[@mrcocoloco7200]

Think of the Children!

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Aye. That's what we call history. Knots and spirals everywhere, no straight path from a to b in sight.

[@ccrider8483]

That is correct. All black and white, no shades of grey.

[@chrispychicken9614]

Wait til they find out the Boston Tea Party was because taxes *weren’t high enough* instead of the alternative they’re taught in school. The Boston Tea Party was a bunch of business owners throwing their competition’s tea into the harbor because it wasn’t taxed as high as theirs. 😂

[@johnwu8916]

@@chrispychicken9614 There is an interesting book about the British East India Company, and part of the book discusses its impact on the American Revolution. Part of the trigger for the Boston Tea Party was the business leader's fear of EIC's domination of the lucrative tea trade due to their lower cost. Hardly the capitalistic ideals that we were led to believe about the core of American identity. If you're interested it's called "The Anarchy" by William Dalrymple.

[@markwilliams2620]

I am violating the law and putting myself at extreme physical risk. I am listening to this outside in Lee county, Floriduh.

[@CynicalHistorian]

Thank you

[@MrStroker2009]

😂

[@jayglenn837]

Another really important point to make is that Jewish values are not the same as Christian values. They should NOT be lumped together.

[@ryanvannice7878]

And neither all Jews or all Christians agree on many values or beliefs. We tend to group people and think that all individuals in the group think the same, which is not even close to true for any grouping, whether religious, political, racial, national, etc.

[@RexNicolaus]

The major difference is the belief of Jesus being the messiah. Other than that, the laws the Jews believe and live under are the same that are held to Christians as well but with the belief that the law is fulfilled by the messiah. But to say they’re not the same in regards to values is wrong.

[@ccsullivan9164]

The Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Collectively known as “people of the book”. Their values ARE shared.

[@youtubeismarxist5816]

Islam and Christianity do not share the same book. ​@@ccsullivan9164

[@vortimerofkent128]

I'm German and I had an advanced course in English back in school. I've learned all of this in school, and it's quite irritating that Americans at that time did not.

[@keithlatham4500]

There is another myth. I certainly learned EVERYTHING covered in this video in school before the 7th grade.

[@TheAmericanAmerican]

A lot of us did learn a lot of this, but 40 years of Fox "News" + a proto-fascist Republican = a thoroughly brainwashed population... Not too different from a certain time period in Germany 100 years ago. History doesn't repeat, but it most certainly rhymes.

[@mrcocoloco7200]

​@@keithlatham4500Lucky Buster

[@Marcus001]

I also learned most of this before 8th grade, some people are just idiots.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@Marcus001 Or live in States that have no interest in teaching this. The US is at least split in two with one half mostly being dominated by Schoolbooks following the texan curriculum and the other half using New York as their cue giver.

[@iammrbeat]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that some will be a bit triggered by this video.

[@ginkiba3]

This is the first time I've ever heard the term "Founding Generation" or "First Generation" in lieu of "Founding Fathers", and I kind of like it. Makes it sound like the Revolution was a much broader invention and affair that affected everyone (which it did) than the brainchild of a small handful of rural aristocrats. Honestly this video was a relief for me; I taught the American Revolution last year for middle school and I was genuinely worried I'd end up dishing out myths as fact or the curriculum would instead, but I was mostly on the money. There's a lot to appreciate and admire about the Revolution, especially in how it did create a newer style of government that's been defining the world for the past two-hundred years, but it was just genuinely a bunch of colonists just wanting to do their own thing at the end of the day. There never was this grand vision for a mighty nation like we'd see near and after the Civil War.

[@CynicalHistorian]

Dunno where I first heard "founding generation," but yeah, it allows for some differentiation between the fathers (IE leadership) and the rest of the United States, even including loyalists who stayed

[@DSnake655]

Huh. I've heard it that way at least a time or two. Oh well.

[@nuke___8876]

I thought that the term was used to avoid the sacralization that comes with the phrase "founding fathers." Criticizing the founding fathers immediately triggers some people. Use a different phrase and they are more likely to at least hear what you have to say. Kinda like saying "freaking" instead of "fucking." We all know what a person really means, but it doesn't get an immediate reaction.

[@synthstatic9889]

We should call them our Founding Daddies to help people realize how weird it is to call them our founding fathers.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@CynicalHistorian It also includes the women that did support the birth of the USA, even if mostly without acknowledgement of their roles. Reducing it only to the "Fathers" is pretty redactive in itself. And wasn't e.g. Washington himself actually childless? Only raising children Martha brought with her into the marriage from her first husband? And a nephew or so? Not that it would change the metaphor of a "father of the nation", Just seems appropriate to not throw everybody blindly in one pot with a very specific moniker. I like the Generation idea.

[@johnmcnulty4425]

My blood boils when Christians say that the founding fathers were evangelicals. If they were, then Thomas jefferson's instructions to Lewis and Clark would have included giving bibles to the many Indian nations they visited and teaching about Jesus, neither of which they did.

[@sammisuejams]

My 8th grade teacher taught us this level of detail. (I am old, and she was Canadian.) It is nice to see a place where people can get American History so beautifully laid out and accessible.

[@juliomoreno6589]

Most other countries will teach the actual history of the US to remind everyone that the US is "great" because of all the people it has screwed over and had continued to screw over the years.

[@francineharbour3943]

CH, I heap praise on you for the video 10 American Founding Myths. so well-researched, and annotated. I wish I had much more money to support your expansion of all the many important concepts in this video. I just saw a news interview yesterday with a well respected pulitzer prize winning historian who described the increasing alarm he and his colleagues are taking about the poor supposedly "history-based" rulings by the United States Supreme Court to promote "Christian Nationalism," i.which more properly should be entitled Christian Theocracy. It is so important that we debunk this dishonest historical " reasoning " by the courts in particular. We need to try to reach the people who are still reachable. There will be that 20% who will never believe anything we explain no matter how much evidence. But there are also 20% who are reachable. They need to hear the kind of myth busting you have presented here so admirably. You have done so well in this video. please please please do more and think about what kind of crowd funding you could do to have a much larger audience. thank you so much. I will be following you closely. FH from from Anchorage Alaska

[@CynicalHistorian]

Thank you very much

[@jeffm9770]

Lost causers pretty much defeat themselves. We don't need to make things up to frustrate them

[@f.prince6642]

Imagine if people had to actually learn about history. Not just how they want it to be.

[@LadyTylerBioRodriguez]

It must be said, good lord are Christian Nationalist paintings terrible. Always inserting political figures into biblical scenes or having Jesus smiling at Ronald Reagan and so forth. Reminds me of earlier statues of the founding fathers making them look buff and godly. No wonder Bioshock Infinite used both to mock such movements.

[@CynicalHistorian]

I don't remember Bioshock using Jon McNaughton paintings. I think they had their own in-house artists make all of that

[@LadyTylerBioRodriguez]

@@CynicalHistorian Its that style not so much the specific guy. I'm thinking the giant painting of George Washington throwing out immigrants while an angel cheers him on. Its very reminiscent of that mans artwork.

[@__-vb3ht]

My "favourite" McNaughton painting is one where all the most noble soldiers who fought for the most righteous causes look up to Jesus. Modern US troops, past US troops, American revolutionary soldiers, Confederates, Conquistadores, Crusaders, Wehrmacht soldiers. It shows very clearly where his allegiances lie Edit: So I looked it up again and while the mentioned soldiers are prominent there are more and it's supposed to be all soldiers in history regardless of cause looking at Jesus. So it's not as bad but there are differences in how it portrays some soldiers vs others, I would say. And McNaughton is still a theocratic Fascist all things considered. But I didn't want to let this misinformation stand like this

[@LadyTylerBioRodriguez]

@@__-vb3ht Holy shit yikes galore.

[@jackthorton10]

I… Your kidding me right?

[@fergu588]

This was informative and very understandable. As an African American I see now where even a small amount of misinformed people can literally derail truth to where people perish.. Thank you for keeping it right..

[@fergu588]

@@votehuss4833 actually yes, when your taught even in school one way, but your immediate society examples another, you go the path of least resistance. Many things came together for me as a Marine and traveling the world, and recognizing there was another view. Race can, especially when your taught to see but not do or coalesce but without empathy or agreement, literally will have you blind to seeing anyone else or thinking there is a connection Beyond race.

[@iattacku2773]

Looking at most of the list it boils down to the fact that “ the founders” like any group of people don’t completely agree with each other on everything. It cracks me up when people always tries to say “x” is what the founders intended I simply ask “ which founder”.

[@jackthorton10]

Gotta be specific :)

[@mathlover2299]

The agreed on the constitution. At least the ones that signed it.

[@chrispychicken9614]

When you learn the Boston Tea Party was just merchants throwing their competition’s under-taxed tea into the harbor you start to see how we ended up the way we ended up.

[@gardnerfiddle2927]

YESSSSS!!!! Thank you for this! And thank you for the transcript. I fight this fight every day living and working in the historic triangle of Virginia. Between Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Yorktown all of which I work at, tourists come here with these strong beliefs quite entrenched. I’ve been trying to break these myths for years. Thank you for creating this resource!

[@JMM33RanMA]

Some of my mother's ancestors were living outside Boston, MA, in the 1760s. Even here, another place where historic sites are a stone's throw away, people have some inaccurate ideas. The most pernicious and troubling one is what is perpetrated every Thanksgiving, when the white people tell their sugar coated history in a costumed parade while the original inhabitants' descendants hold a day of sad remembrance. People do know about King Philip's War [a.k.a. Metacom's Rebellion], There are schools, places and streets with his English name, but most people buy into the myths, and prefer to ignore the ugly realities. If you are interested, Atun-Shei Films has a historically accurate, detailed film about it. There are also fictionalized [I hope] ones about the witchcraft stuff, and an interesting North VS South series.

[@gardnerfiddle2927]

@@JMM33RanMA I subscribe to Atun-Shei’s KZbin channel and have watched the King Philips war videos. Excellent work. What I like about his channel is that he has debunked even himself and his earlier videos. Cypher and him are true historians!

[@squidjit83]

@@JMM33RanMA The Native Americans were 10x more barbaric and brutal than any European country. They rightfully lost and we should not feel ashamed of that

[@JMM33RanMA]

@@squidjit83 On behalf of the very civilized Five [later 6] Nations of the Haudenosaunee, I deny the truth of that, though I am not of their blood. Your statement might be true of the Aztec and Maya, but most of the tribes in the North were actually, in some ways more civilized than Europeans. As a European, of mostly Irish descent, I can say this because we suffered at the hands of the Sassenach . If you are not ashamed of breaking treaties, repeatedly, engaging in racism and ethnic cleansing repeatedly, and denying the equality and humanity of others, it is you who should feel deeply, soul searingly ashamed of yourself and those who made you that way.

[@RevShifty]

​@@JMM33RanMADo the Natives Americans in the region still have their own march of mourning onto Plymouth Rock? I was fortunate enough to know one of the organizers many years ago and even helped transport people to the area, but I haven't been back in so long I don't even know if they hold that as a day of mourning any more.

[@Deztyn]

So glad you mentioned the three fifths compromise. The misunderstanding of it is one of my biggest pet peeves.

[@jordanwutkee2548]

I'm glad it was explained how a full count would have favored slavery, but I was disappointed that the typical specific and wrong wording was used suggesting that the compromise was to count each non-free person as three-fifths of a person. That is *not* what the relevant clause says. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution reads "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Counting everyone but only using 3/5 of the total count of the slave population for representation has vastly different implications versus counting an enslaved person as 3/5 of a person. Some may say that it's a distinction without a difference or that arguing about semantics is just pedantic, but I've seen it misunderstood and misused for rhetorical purposes often enough to know that it does everyone a disservice to ignore it. They are not the same. One implies an additional demeaning and dehumanizing racist practice on top of the barbarity of slavery, and the other factually was a practical way to prevent slaveholding states from having more power over the nation than they merited. No one was *ever* just "counted as only 3/5 of a person." The notion itself is absurd.

[@jakes658]

​@@jordanwutkee2548It gave slaveholding states more power though. It gave them greater representation in the government not less. Did i misinterpret something you said?

[@jordanwutkee2548]

@@jakes658 Yes, you did. There's a reason it's called the Three Fifths Compromise. The alternatives were either to count no slaves towards congressional representation-which the slave states would have balked at and rejected the constitutional union entirely over-or to count all slaves towards representation, which would have made the slave states disproportionately more powerful in Congress than either other alternative. The latter scenario would have resulted in the free states seceding or rejecting the Constitution instead. Given the conditions of the time, the compromise option was the only way to keep the Union intact and prevent the country from being divided and re-conquered by Britain or any other powerful foe.

[@jakes658]

@@jordanwutkee2548 The three fifths compromise has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting the constitution. Like i said, it gave slave states more representation and power. It was the best they could do at the time i suppose to avoid the eventual war.

[@jakes658]

@@NSOcarth I don't understand that logic at all...

[@noanyobiseniss7462]

Nice to see you mention the Gaspee, I get sick of hearing about the tea party as the first strike of rebellion.

[@TheCrotchetyoldwoman]

I think one of the causes of the Revolution that I've read about that you missed was the Stamp Act, which required among other things, all printed materials to pay a tax to get the required stamp before distribution. In order to get the stamp, the publisher had to submit a copy of the material to a government agency. I am not sure if this actually did lead to censorship, but I am pretty sure that I've read that many publishers, including Franklin, became far more hostile towards the British government out of fear of the implications of this act.

[@meeeka]

In Australia, we still have a Stamp Act: each piece of official paper over which a tax will be paid , ie tax, will, other docs, requires a tax stamp.

[@SamWinchester000]

I think he mentioned it in his list as "Stamp Act Congress" if this refers to the same act.

[@haytguugle8656]

you lightly touch upon what some consider the deeper source of the colonists' concern about the Stamp Act than just having to pay yet another sum of money. They wondered (likely rightly so) that forcing all documents be required to pass through British government representative hands (and eyes) would either catch or curtail seditious or inciteful materials. Even if it wasn't the government's intent, those who would communicate in writing would see the danger and be not happy about it. Either write/send in secret with the threat of punishment, be caught up sending contraband materials or having to refrain from communicating in writing.

[@haytguugle8656]

@@meeeka Really? What are you guys waiting for? ;-)

[@lorenfranz3173]

When you think about it, if you picture hierarchy as a pyramid with a king or emperor on top, all the American Revolution did was lower the pyramid or replaced the top with wealthy elites instead. Everyone else stayed where they were.

[@pascalausensi9592]

@RachaelMarieNewport The people of Rome had a lot more power than that during the early and middle Republic, it wasn't until the late Republic that it turned into what we would identify as an oligarchy. And even then there were somewhat democratic post like that of the Tribune of the Plebs that carried real influence and authority until the very end. Polybius comes to mind, as he famously characterised the Roman Republic as the perfect mixture mixture of monarchy (consuls), aristocracy (senate), and democracy (assemblies). That's almost certainly a more accurate way of describing the Republic at its height.

[@lorenfranz3173]

I clearly oversimplified in my comment, but history has shown that when the established order is disturbed, only the top 1% see any real change to their authority. Sure, they make promises to the underclass that they will help bring improvements to their lives, but they almost never do. Corruption just cycles through until people are sick and tired and want someone who promises he will change things and acts like a strongman. Sound familiar?

[@Joanna-il2ur]

@@pascalausensi9592 The Roman Kings were elected and when the king died there was an interrex who covered the gap to the next election and couldn’t himself stand for king. All male Roman adult citizens voted for the king, but under the republic only the patricians could do so.

[@jackg3729]

I know this is over a year old but it wasn’t that cut and dry. For the time American capitalism on both the DR and F sides of the aisle was considered a very left wing position. Monarchy isn’t only about the king but is also about the landed privileged aristocracy. In this era wealthy elites were often descended from old noble houses and had (much like the modern day bourgeoisie) an oligarchic position that was, not just implicitly like today, but explicitly carved into law. These same elites exercised massive economic sway over the East India Company as well as many guilds. By the way the US explicitly forbade aristocracy from even having political rights in the US, they effectively forced out the upper class of the time and made the way for merchant commoners to dominate the economy. It’s not until a bit later during the early 19th century do you see this merchant class essentially become a new class of oligarchs like today, something many of the founders (notably Paine and Jefferson) were incredibly concerned would happen. This isn’t even considering how the American economic model was different in a bunch of more minor and technical ways. For example a different development of the implementation of enclosurement and private property law in the 13 colonies was then reformed post independence to become modern private ownership. This is amongst other things like laissez faire, agrarianism, etc. that British mercantilist economics had less in common with than it would initially seem.

[@corngreaterthanwheat]

In all fairness, our two original sins of genocide and slavery are both pretty bad. I think we can agree on that.

[@jenniferburns2530]

My interpretation of the "original sin" conception of slavery is that the founders, in creating the Constitution, could have abolished slavery or set up a way to eliminate it over time. They didn't create slavery or fight the war over it. They established a new country with slavery as part of its founding.

[@zombiedoggie2732]

Problem was if they did it would of started a civil war. They were allready fighting one war, they needed as many people as they could on board.

[@Wud-f2r]

Half of the colonies would have completely rejected any proposal that would impact their livelihoods and economy by outlawing slavery.

[@JMM33RanMA]

This video is great, and reminds me of my historiography class when I was in grad school. However, it may overemphasize the importance of the tea tax and the Boston Tea Party. The New England Yankees were accustomed to self government. When the Crown tried to unify the Northeast into the Dominion of New England, the people of Boston rebelled and arrested Gov. Andros and the people of NY arrested his lieutenant governor. The biggest mistake the Crown made in the Coercive Acts [a.k.a. The Intolerable Acts] was to try to suppress both the provincial parliament, and, more importantly, local government by town meeting. The parliament refused dissolution and began meeting outside Boston as a revolutionary government, it continued to receive elected members from the towns, who not only rejected suppression but began building up military stocks and drilling the militias. That revolutionary proto-democratic republic, submitted proposed constitutions to the town meetings, and the present constitution of Massachusetts was approved by the towns in 1780. It is suggested that the proportion of the population of this ares that was loyal to the Crown or undecided was about %30-40, and the franchise was higher than in other places because the majority of the population were owners of family farms, and in most cases the owner and adult sons were able to participate in open town meetings. Some of this is based on a number of assumptions, that town meetings had the same rules, that everyone with the franchise used it, and that tories were numerous but not openly. Town meeting is still used until the population of the town reaches a level that makes it problematic. We do not have counties with governmental functions except, in MA, as court districts and water control areas. All in all, a very good and much needed contribution to public education.

[@patspencer5649]

First time on the channel. Good stuff. I was raised by my father to study history and relate it current events. One of my earliest memories is sitting with him and watching the Watergate hearings as a young child. He explained things to me when I had questions. I'm not sure that many lately had that influence. I've even heard that a lot of the current students don't even have civics class.

[@Tzensa]

Regarding civics classes I graduated from hs in Texas in 97 and can confirm we had no civics classes at that time

[@lperea21]

​@@Tzensawow, Im from NJ and graduated highschool in 95. We did have civics classes. But I remember that more from middle school not high school. Could be wrong.

[@markadams7046]

Ho Chi Min thought Vietnam was going to get support from the U.S.A. in their fight for independence from France. He even quoted Thomas Jefferson in some of his speeches. But because our fear of communism during the cold war, we went to war against Vietnam.

[@baneofbanes]

Tbf Ho Chi Min wasn’t exactly democratic either.

[@ninja1antelope]

@@baneofbaneseither was the US.

[@baneofbanes]

@@ninja1antelope more so than North Vietnam has still yet to become.

[@superbro9576]

@@baneofbanes OP never said he was

[@ninja1antelope]

@@baneofbanes and the US has been identified as one that's at risk. With gerrymandering, a supreme court that has been packed with theologists with no accountability and the passing of citizens united I think its safe to say its dead.

[@RichFlemingRealtor]

Thanks for this and all of your other videos! It drives me CRAZY when people manipulate history to fit their beliefs. Rarely is history purely "black and white" and most historic figures aren't purely angelic nor evil.

[@JohnSmith-zw8vp]

Well there were a few history book saints (historical figures no one can find anything wrong with them)...Anne Frank, Jackie Robinson, Harriet Tubman, Lou Gehrig, Fred Rogers, just to name a few off the top of my head. Then you have ones like Nelson Mandela (George Washington of modern South Africa) and Ghandi who are often perceived to be history book saints until you learn a little more about their darker sides.

[@graemewatling9719]

Christians really seem to have the most unChristian views especially those of the American white evangelical persuasion which is hardly surprising as most arn't very clued up on their own bible and the origins of their religion

[@jhouck1969]

I believe another common myth around the Boston Tea Party was that taxes on tea would make it too expensive, which angered the colonists enough to storm the ships and throw the tea into Boston harbor. The truth is the Tea Act of 1773 meant to LOWER the price of English tea in the colonies through several measures: giving the British East India Company a monopoly to sell tea in the colonies, letting BEIC ship directly to the colonies instead of having to sell their tea at auction in London, and providing British naval escorts into American ports (paid for by the new taxes placed on the tea) to dissuade pirates and reduce the supply of pirated tea to the black markets. Many of the participants in the Tea Party were privateers who stood to lose revenue if that tea made it to market. The bigger risk to the nascent rebellion would have been to allow the Tea Act to convince colonists that Parliament could pass taxes on the colonies as long as those taxes improved their lives (such as lowering the costs of goods). It would have completely undercut the "No Taxation Without Representation" argument.

[@celestejohnston6613]

I just found this channel. So nice to see our history laid out like this. Thank you. I love the use of many clips from 1776. Not only a wonderful musical I think it highlights many of the points you are making. It shows many men of diverse thinking, many furious debates over the Declaration and Independence itself...and snappy musical numbers! 😀 Really glad I found your channel. I shall watch more of your videos now! Currently trying buy a house right now but will become a Patreon member soon!

[@jeffstaples347]

Thanks for revisiting more mythologies and u.s. origin story history.

[@tomhalla426]

The philosophy of many of the American revolutionaries was Whiggism, which died out in England, but was English in origin. The notion of natural rights was consistent with that party. Hamilton and Madison were allies when they wrote the Federalist Papers, despite being leaders of opposing political parties later. The actual “right wing” left for Canada or the UK, or had little political power.

[@CynicalHistorian]

The founders were not a monolith. Whiggishness was not universal and many founders specifically argued against it

[@nigeh5326]

The Whigs didn’t disappear from British politics until the mid 19th century when they joined with free trade tories and free trade radicals to become the Liberal Party. They then lost power and influence in the party due to the rise of Gladstone and his supporters with some Whigs leaving the Liberal Party in 1886 over Irish Home Rule (Ireland has been the cause of many British parliamentary splits and problems for centuries). The whigs who left then formed the Liberal Unionist Party which was later absorbed into the Conservative Party in 1912.

[@pikachuchujelly7628]

The terms "left wing" and "right wing" come from the French Revolution, where the right wing sided with the king, and the left wing sided with the people, so the American Revolution was a left-wing cause in opposing the king of England.

[@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming]

The “UK” didn’t exist until 1921.

[@tomhalla426]

@@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming What was it called from The Act of Union around 1703? I know it was not called the British Empire until Queen Victoria

[@corinnecivish7673]

Good video. Two small critiques: section 2 - no mention if the Iroquois Confederacy, 14:32 no mention of Sybil Ludington. I thought those were missed opportunities, but other than that, very fine work

[@elleaubry3772]

This is the first video I’ve seen and I enjoyed it immensely. Thank you.

[@mayor6366]

For Myth #5, would it be correct to say that the lack of a national identity was partially due to people identifying more with states than the whole country, or were state identities not fully developed yet?

[@CynicalHistorian]

Good question, but one that cannot be fully answered. There is some evidence that state-identity formation was beginning, but that largely depends on your defintion. One of my favorite books on that are Bender's _A Nation among Nations_ and _Rethinking American History in a Global Age_

[@mjvajda]

@@CynicalHistoriancouldn’t you also say that the militia and provincial experience in the Seven Years’ War also shaped the identity about the American colonists? For instance, to use Fred Anderson as an example, the British regulars despised New England militiamen and provincials because of their particular habits like electing their leaders and strictly adhering to their contracts (leaving if they believed the British Army violated those terms…even if the middle of the campaign).

[@kingofdemons573]

@@CynicalHistorianThis is quite interesting to hear. I have always been taught that nationalism would not really start until the later years of the War of 1812

[@CynicalHistorian]

@@kingofdemons573 you're not wrong. but some authors argue there was a proto-nationalism forming during the early republic period related to individual states - though I will point out most of them are not historians, rather cultural studies PhDs who happen to touch on some historical subjects but never contribute or use the historical method

[@robto]

​@@kingofdemons573I thought it was more during the American Civil War that the ida of an "American nation" was fully formed.

[@coreyfinnegan5552]

Excellent video! I'm a serious student of the American Rev and have read well over 100 books on the period and the key people. I watched this assuming I'd be nitpicking the heck out of this video, but instead I found it to be mostly spot-on - with one single exception. I agree with all of your essential points in your myth-busting, except to say that #10 is highly debatable. While I largely agree with your criticism of modern neolibs who have hijacked the American Rev for their own purposes, they have a point when they claim that a major strain of the Revolution was a preference for 'small government'. To wit: Thomos Paine, the forgotten Founder and the voice of the Revolution's radically democratic ideals, wrote "That govt is best which governs least." This was a catchy shorthand distillation of a major strand of Classical Liberalism: that it was often better for govt to stay out of the way of a great many things, and that the bigger the govt became, the more opportunities for and likelihood of corruption. This idea has had a massive influence on subsequent American political history, long before its corrupt revival under the banner of neoliberalism. Going back to the Founding, shrinking the size of govt was a key part of Jefferson's political agenda, which he enacted by actually shrinking the size of govt upon being elected President. And fears of a powerful govt were the major motivation of the Anti-Federalists. That said, learning the actual history of the American Rev provides several important arguments against modern neoliberal and libertarian ideology. Firstly, the small size and power of the state govts (particularly their inadequate level of taxation) during the American Rev was the primary reason the Continental Army remained a ragtag, understaffed and undersupplied army for the entire war. Winter after winter, soldiers starved and froze without necessary food and clothing, because rich men didn't want to pay more taxes. This fact makes the rebels' victory all the more miraculous - indeed inspiring. Furthermore, the purpose of the Constitution was to organize the American state govts into a cohesive whole in order to provide a better and more effective govt - which was by necessity also a bigger govt. So it's a fact that the large majority of the key Founders worked to expand the size and scope of America's govt. And finally, Thomas Paine, whose ideals had a massive impact on shaping the politics of America's Founding and subsequent history, was also one of (if not the) first writer(s) to propose a social safety-net, in his hugely important pamphlets "The Rights of Man" and "Agrarian Justice". So it is a fact that agitation for a 'welfare state'/social safety net goes all the way back to the Founders, which disproves the notion that the Founders as a whole (who, as you rightly pointed out, were not all of like mind) would oppose state programs to decrease inequality. I wish you had made these arguments instead of dismissing the desire for 'small govt' as a modern phenomenon. It's not. But otherwise, fantastic video.

[@3seven5seven1nine9]

This video starts off swinging right out the gate and I love it

[@kobalt7zero]

By far one of my favorite videos you’ve done, I been telling people about many of these for years now and it was awesome to get the additional context a real expert can provide.

[@destronger5313]

as i’ve been learning more about my jewish heritage (moms family is jewish but i was not raised in the religion), i’ve learned many of my fellow jews disapprove the term ‘judeo-christian’ as it’s used mainly by christian’s to connect them to the torah as though they originate with it. many of these christian’s are nationalist too.

[@goldman77700]

I approve of this separation as unlike the Judaism or Islam, Christianity isn't so heavily focused on Genealogy. Especially after the New Testament aka the actual Christian part.

[@ginkiba3]

The term also just falls flat when you look back through history and see the many instances of the "Christian" part trying to persecute or remove the "Judeo" part. Churches and Christians trying to extend a hand of brotherhood to the Jewish community is extremely recent and often politically motivated despite the two religions being extremely different from each other.

[@seanbeadles7421]

Judeo-Christian Values is like, classic doublespeak

[@ginkiba3]

@@seanbeadles7421 you also have a hard time getting people to actually list and define those values too.

[@JMM33RanMA]

@@ginkiba3 Early Christians like Peter, believed that you couldn't become a Christian unless you became a Jew first. The hypocritical "Judeo Christians" are not only fake Jews but fake Christians as well. They claim to worship the Bible above all else, but they not only refuse to read it they refuse to understand what is written there.

[@chandlergies3440]

the Christian nation paintings are peak cringe. What was the source?

[@CynicalHistorian]

They're all paintings by Jon McNaughton. And yeah, they are perfect example of how terrible Christian nationalism warps one's mind

[@miaththered]

"Judaeo-Christian" is also incredibly antisemitic and feeds into supersessionism.

[@CynicalHistorian]

*Supersessionism I had to look that up to make sure, but I could guess just from the name. Amazing how all conspiracism inevitably leads to antisemitism

[@LadyTylerBioRodriguez]

If you dig deep enough, most conspiracy theories have some origin or aspect in antisemitism. Its always poison the well they control the world financial domination blah blah blah. Christ if your gonna be a conspiracy theorist at least get creative with it.

[@miaththered]

@@CynicalHistorian My thanks for catching the unintentional typo, it wasn't deliberate.

[@JMM33RanMA]

@@CynicalHistorian But those space lasers starting all the fires, earthquakes and hurricanes PROVE that they are out to get the True White Christian Americans. Or maybe some of it is started by LGBTQs and Trans. ㋛ 🤣

[@RexNicolaus]

Oh here we go with the “anti-semitism is in everything”

[@BIGBOPPER41]

Hot diggity, always great work. I love your content. Keep it up. You are a great inspiration to a wannabe history nerd like myself. Thank you.

[@seantlewis376]

First time viewer. I truly appreciate the approach here, and will subscribe to watch more. I have read The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers, which together give so much context to all of the stories we were told as children. And, wow! You must really like the movie 1776! I enjoyed it, but its history is questionable at best.

[@CynicalHistorian]

I reviewed it a couple years ago. Very much enjoy the movie

[@AlexirLife]

This was done beautifully, as usual. I'm constantly amazed by how badly American history is taught. Especially considering how little history that isn't American is taught I'm in Australia & our history is poorly taught too but it isn't a thing we bang on about it either. We're slowly coming to grips with the genocide of the First Nation's people who lived happily across the continent for at least 65 000 years before the British showed up. Slowly. Thanks to their resilience there are still First Nation's people here & some of their cultures have survived But I still don't understand why Americans think that the propaganda taught to kids in school is the last thing you are supposed to learn about history 🤦‍♀️

[@skybluskyblueify]

@@thorpeaaron1110 Happy as compared to genocide and wholesale robbery. I understand that at least in America before Europeans came that they often did not get along and from time to time enslaved fellow first nations people etc..

[@AlexirLife]

@@thorpeaaron1110 Indigenous people lived as happily as European folks did. European people fought amongst themselves, enslaved each other, disagreed about how to live & what to believe didn't they? What makes the European way better? There is very little evidence of war on the continent of Australia before the Europeans showed up. The oldest man made structure was fish traps built for an urban settlement of Indigenous people in Australia The first bread baked was by First Nation's folks in Australia The people who lived here lived within the lands means instead of the European idea of changing the landscape to fit the people. They still farmed, took care of the land & managed resources. Show me how Indigenous people are better off now that white people have "civilised" them?

[@adsri2755]

@@AlexirLife according to Christophe Darmangeat, there was frequent and large scale conflict among aboriginals. The peaceful hunter gatherer is a myth.

[@AlexirLife]

@@adsri2755 You missed the point. "Living happily" doesn't mean or imply they were living perfect lives in paradise. Europeans certainly weren't! The idea that Indigenous people are better off for being "civilised" by white people is arrogant & clearly untrue. That is what I'm challenging.

[@AlexirLife]

@@adsri2755 check out the work of Bruce Pascoe. His work on Indigenous folks in Australia

[@AmySavage6]

Myth #7 has always amused me, if the constitution was flawless it wouldn't need amending. Yet it was, almost immediately.

[@cliffgaither]

AmySavage :: The writers of the big C. had a very difficult time winning Ratification. Important States just didn't appreciate the elitist, Property-Owners' class who met behind close doors to overturn the AOC. In order to help pass the passage, the Bill of Rights was added. ( The Colonial Mind:: 1620-1800 by Vernon L. Parrington. )

[@DirtScraps]

This was absolutely fantastic. You’ve earned yourself a subscriber! 👍❤️

[@openclassusa3534]

THIS CHANNEL IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED BY ME.

[@waltpoitevien1517]

I love your channel, I wait as a hawk to see the release of your new videos and it is refreshing in this day and age. Thank you and keep doing the great work.

[@moshecallen]

As a Jew, I find the term "Judeo-Christian" so grossly overstates the commonalities between Christianity and Judaism as to be outright Christian-supremacist. You mention the 10 Commandments. We don't even agree what those are, who they apply to, or what their significance is. If you take a Christian supposed translation of the Torah etc. and what Jews and Christians think it says, what it's talking about, and how it says it will virtually never be the same. More often than not, they have very little in common. All this is true even if you only consider those Jews who live in predominately Christian societies. When you consider all Jews everywhere, it's not even close.

[@phoenixshadow6633]

Not to mention Judaism is just as internally diverse as Christianity if not more. Rabbis arguing and agreeing to disagree is a sport.

[@williethomas5116]

"The point of a revolution is never to maintain the status quo" I've made this argument several times to the misconception that it was a conservative revolution. This video is so well done. I've used this in regards to the idea it was over slavery to liberals.

[@hisnibs1121]

But no one plans a revolution to overturn everything. There will always be things that are consciously or unconsciously sought to be maintained or strengthened. So there will be both conservative and radical aspects to any revolution, and it is not at all a misconception to recognise that. I think the author's key point in this video is not to oversimplify, and it would certainly be an oversimplification to claim there were no conservative aspects to either the intent or the effect of the revolution. I am not claiming (is anyone? - I genuinely don't know) that the revolution is wholly conservative. They are always a mix. The other thing to be wary of is saying, as you did, it can't be (or must be) X because it's a 'revolution'. How did some collection of things that happened come to be called a 'revolution'? Who said it was one? Should no one ever question or reconsider something because it was given a (quite possibly tendentious) name?

[@williethomas5116]

@@BenjaminWirtz I say Francis Duke of Teck was my great great grandfather but I highly doubt Charles and Camilla will be handing over crown jewels to me and my wife. Just kidding. But seriously, I don't think that any maintenance of status compares to the changes the revolution brought. No more king, loss of English citizenship and protection from the British Navy. Instituting a Democracy/Republic. A unique idea of property ownership. Life changed dramatically for those willing to take advantage of those changes. But there are always going to be some aspects that remain the same it was a revolution not anarchy. It gave every American a chance to shape their own destiny.

[@williethomas5116]

@@BenjaminWirtz Now the French Revolution was also lead by the bugouise. They were not peasants they were already stakeholders in the government. They wanted a bigger piece of the pie because of the power of the aristocracy. The French Revolution was a direct result of the American revolution because of the rights given to the common man and financial crisis caused by them supporting it. It was not a conservative revolution because giving those types of rights to people with no titles and giving the shack homeowner the same political rights to vote as that of a plantation owner was the most advanced liberal idea of all time. You have to understand. Before that point everything I mean everything all land belonged to the king but the king distributed land to his vassals who held fidelity and fealty to the king. Then those barons (Dukes and Earls) then had their Barons and Knights who then held the land. They in turn rented land to the peasants and farmers. But the land flowed upwards. The idea that any person of any rank would acquire land that they owed to no one was novel. The French Revolution was the wealthy class wanting ownership of their own lands without fealty to anyone. This individualist property right that is pervasive in America was a very liberal concept.

[@IkeOkerekeNews]

13:04 Also, I might be wrong on this, but wasn't the Southern aristocracy the most Loyalist group (at least in the South)?

[@artpkaful]

I started watching video right now and you're going over what you're about to explain and I thought this guy is really good. I should subscribe to him. And then I looked at the name and realized it. I already was subscribed to you and I had just watched your other video yesterday. It's it's awesome how good of a historian you are. Thank you!

[@theskintexpat-themightygreegor]

I quite enjoyed this video. I'm an American, but I've lived as an expat for most of my life. But as an American, I am often asked by my students about the founding of the United States and its system of government. I can now point them to this video to corroborate what I've been telling them for years (in addition to many videos explaining the Electoral College, which trips people not from the U.S. out). I have a request. Could you please do a video explaining how states vs the federal government work? What I tell my students is that a "state" is an autonomous government, so most countries are (or have; I'm not sure of the semantics there) also states. But not all. Taiwan, for example, is/has a state, though it's not a country (because it lacks recognition of most other countries). The united states of the United States are actually states which have given up a small part of their autonomy to be part of the federal United States of America. (By the way, Mexico is very similar.) With a few exceptions, the governments of those states actually govern those states, more so than the federal government (e.g. the governor is the top office of the state, NOT the POTUS). Basically, "state" in the context of the U.S. and "state" in the context of the government of a country are NOT different meanings! These are the basics of what I teach my students, and if you can make a video addressing this, I'd be grateful. I'm not asking you to agree with me about this! If you don't, I'd be interested in what I got wrong. Entirely BTW, thanks for the slide that explains what the definitions of republic and democracy are.

[@hereigoagain5050]

Cool! Also, the Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” One of the major roles of the Supreme Court is adjudicating the boundary. The repeal of Roe vs Wade is a case study in Federal vs State authority.

[@theskintexpat-themightygreegor]

@@hereigoagain5050 That's true, but more importantly to the daily lives of the people, that revocation puts other interpretive decisions in danger, such as the freedom of marriage interpretation. These things need to be made amendments to make them permanent. The irony is that the very thing that makes amendments permanent is the very thing that makes it difficult to get an amendment through in the first place - the difficulty of making such a change. Just imagine - the ERA never passed! A lot of people don't remember this detail, but women are not constitutionally (that is, legally) equal to men except for a court decision that another court can roll back.

[@hereigoagain5050]

@@theskintexpat-themightygreegor For sure! Definitely remember ERA. We seemed to be making so much progress until the failure for 3 states to ratify the ERA. So sad that Phyllis Schlafly lead the conservative backlash.

[@theskintexpat-themightygreegor]

@@hereigoagain5050 Phyllis Schafly! Jesus wept, yeah, I remember her. That name brings Jello Biafra and the Dead Kennedys to mind. Jello HATED her.

[@DevinMacGregor]

We have a federal system. What people call the federal govt is really the central govt or national govt. Federalism means simply, different jurisdictions over the same land. The national govt has jurisdiction within its national borders. Each state within its own borders. The National govt is the supreme law of the land. Powers are also shared and some exclusive.

[@ethos5]

I know you're not gonna see this, but thank you for mentioning the Sullivan Expedition. I live in the area it happened, and its something that needs to be better known

[@jeffreyestahl]

Nicely done. It's nice to know there are people out there who look a bit cynically at things. Far too often people attach overly sentimental perspective on institutions (usually due to 'tradition' without realizing that those institutions had a first time being enacted. An addendum to the "The founders wanted a small government" myth. We tried the whole small government model before the present Constitutuion in the Articles of Confederation. It nearly resulted in the United States ceasing to exist. Another myth for you (mostly from conservatives) - the notion that the federal government derives its power from the consent of the states. This concept was enshrined directly in the Articles but specifically left out of the present Constitution precisely due to the need for a strong federal government as seen in incidents like Maryland and Pennsylvania going to war with one another of a border dispute in the early 1780s. (luckily, only for a couple of weeks and only a handful of people were injured with none killed) The myth that the 2nd Amendment exists to preserve the 1st. Umm...Shay's Rebellion anyone? That's should (if someone is logical) disavow anyone of the modern NRA interpretation. Then there's the myth of Textualism which completely ignores the 9th Amendment. Finally, there's the argument that "If we just had a balanced budget amendment like red states, all problems would go away." Well...49 of 50 states already have a BBAs (New Hampshire being the sole holdout IIRC). What these people don't seem to care about learning is the "Full faith and credit" clause in Artilce IV which establishing the primary concept of a federated system where the various components of a whole (i.e. the states) share their wealth with one another (another very liberal view) with the wealthier parts covering the poorer parts. Where the overal budget problem starts is with states artificially lowering their taxes to well below what's necessary to support their local populations, cynically knowing full well (hopefully, they know full well, otherwise they're being recklessly vapid instead of just being knowingly negligent) that the federal government is required to bail them out, then arguing that such low taxes (and 'small' governement as discussed above) are evidence they're supposedly better run. The reality is it's the higher taxed states that are being more realistic. A BBA at the federal level would lead inevitably to the demise of the United States. There's more, but I doubt anyone would like reading a wall of text.

[@Munchausenification]

Im not sure i understand what you mean by myth 6 where you say 18:25 "... to institute a new world republic. Only the Dutch Revolt and Parliamentarians in Great Britain offer previous examples". Sure the American republic was quite unique, but there has been republics before that? Just not sure what exactly you mean by it.

[@devinlong7478]

Myth: the American Revolution was always a revolution for independence. Fact: the American Revolution began initially as a revolution to *restore traditional British rights*. As time went along and as all the gradual events, complexities, and changes happened between 1763 and 1776, the American Revolution shifted into one for independence. Breaking away from Britain and the Crown was never the original goal, especially since Americans before 1776 still saw themselves as British.

[@jackthorton10]

True

[@SWLinPHX]

@@jackthorton10 Yes, but every great and impactful movement evolves at some point.

[@stthomasaquarius]

That’s true, but Thomas Paine was pretty much always agitating for independence. And he was the freshest of immigrants having come in 1774.

[@devinlong7478]

@@stthomasaquarius he was one of the few before Lexington and Concord who wanted independence, hence the purpose of Common Sense after the battles.

[@Killer_Chaun]

It's awesome how that works. People will first start out with an idea that evolves into a better idea that is agreed upon as a collective. Kind of like how before monotheistic abrhamic religions gained influence polytheism was staple belief system of the time but as our ideas about god evolved we seemed to have agreed as a collective that monotheism is superior and has been for centuries now amen 💪🏻🇺🇲🙏🏻

[@andrewwilliams7661]

While I may quibble with minor points of yours here and there, I truly appreciate your fair minded and even-handed presentation of the facts. Excellent video; thoroughly enjoyed.

[@Mr._Wizard]

This is great! Do you think you'll ever do an in-depth video on Aaron Burr? My favorite founding father, his vision of the country was radically different from others. Had Hamilton not swung the election to Jefferson, I think this country would be shaped a lot more fairly.

[@soffren]

That's a very interesting timeline and now I want to see one of the alt hist KZbinrs cover it 🤓

[@andresacosta4832]

I should read up more on Aaron Burr. Now, where did I leave my peanut butter?

[@CaptCKernel]

Ohhhhhh that's a fascinating bit of alt history. I'm really interested in the Burr Conspiracy and how the Dem-Reps cannibalized themselves after the Federalists cannibalized themselves, what that meant for the rest of our early history.

[@darknight8139]

This is a refreshing channel. Thank you.

[@KnightlyNerdandDork]

“How quintessentially British to overreact to improperly steeped tea” 😂 In sincerity though, you do great as ever Cypher! Also even though this country of ours isn’t a monarchy, Hail his ever furry and noble majesty King Richard I

[@mitchhaelann9215]

Thank you. I'm going to be citing this video frequently in the future. I have a LOT of arguments with christian nationalists who don't understand that most of the founding fathers did *not* respect christianity and wanted America to be completely secular in governance.

[@erinmcdonald7781]

Nicely done! I love your definition of "myth." It helps explain why it's so hard to get the debunking through to some people. They're emotionally invested. It's the same reason the diehard MAGA people can't accept the election results three years on, identity. Also, the fact that much of our past has been struggles for the non-elite to gain voting power/equality under the law is a fact that ties everything together. Even today it continues as a fight against "conservative" regressivism and far-right extremism. Thank you for this insightful breakdown to share with my students. ✌️😎

[@squidjit83]

If you’re a teacher you should definitely refrain from indoctrinating children. I understand the US is flawed, but it’s obvious you’re a Marxist who despises tradition in general

[@jackthorton10]

Agreed good sir, the fight is not over, and neither are we, God Bless America

[@saturationstation1446]

are you really fighting conservatism tho? are you actively dismantling eurocentric hegemony? because conservatism only exists thanks to european monarchs long entrenched corruption buying large brainwashing operations to force the american public into. surely you know the big switch that happened within our government during ww2 where the uk gained operational control of our "intelligence agencies" and proceeded to use it to further their own interests at the expense of american citizens well being. that why/how uk intelligence has 10k data points of every voting age american in the country and no where in south america, africa, russia, middle east or asia have anything remotely close to that.

[@kspfan001]

Recently, I have found the work of James Vaughn on the 18th century British Empire and revolutionary colonial British North America to be extremely helpful in having a better understanding of the American Revolution. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on or even an exploration of his work as it is of an academic scholarly nature. It also undermines many of the current popular (re)interpretations of the American Revolution (progressive, Horne, 1619, modern conservative, etc) like you do here in this video, so that's fun.

[@paraselene4298]

Myth #1 is the most common myth I've heard and the one that has caused arguments. It always made my skin crawl and seeing those paintings made me cringe so hard. Christian nationalism is disgusting :/

[@RexNicolaus]

As opposed to the secular ideals being pushed today, I’d take “Christian Nationalism” over what we have today.

[@The_Proud_Texan]

“The Radicalism of the American Revolution” is a great book on this topic

[@TheAmericanAmerican]

Real men, the GigaChads if you will, learn history, accept it, and use it build a better society.

[@francesrude3007]

I always love this channel. Thanks!!

[@Ben-tb5di]

Now we can actually talk about the facts of the American Revolution, including that time Washington drove his Dodge Challenger at those red coats in the name of liberty!

[@RerememBerering]

George Washington being British I knew, but him returning to England after serving as president of the colonies is crazy.

[@jaarneal]

The reason I knew half of these myths were myths was because of the HBO show John Adams. I'm sure there are plenty of criticisms of it from a historical perspective, but in general I suspect it paints a decent picture of what the time was like. I highly recommend it.

[@aiolos000]

I must wholeheartedly thank you, because, with the excuse of debunking myth, you shed some light over my utter ignorance of american early history

[@aiolos000]

and thanks for Mozart's KV 465

[@americanaccolon1319]

Calling Alexander Hamilton a likely deist is a bit of a stretch considering he spent his last moments of life begging multiple ministers to give him the sacrament of communion.

[@AdriLeemput]

Just one minor issue: both Revere and Dawes did finish their Midnight Ride. Joseph Warren instructed both of them to go to Lexington to inform John Hancock and Samuel Adams (who were staying there) that they would get arrested. (we now know that Warren was misinformed about that part). They only decided to go to Concord after they arrived there. I learned this when I worked at the Paul Revere House, and got confirmed during my training to be a tour guide on the freedom trail in Boston (yes, including the colonial outfit).

[@therealnathnath154]

0:30 “Im about to bust”

[@bradleydelay]

Oh I'm sorry I thought this was the bathroom- OH GOOD LORD

[@shadrielv7113]

New sub here. I love your cat talk at the end, he sounds adorable 😍

[@veronicaharris8541]

Benjamin Franklin was more agnostic & Thomas Paine was more atheist, than originally thought

[@rickysanders6487]

In my opinion, two of the greatest men to walk upon this earth. I owe almost my entire political and philosophical worldview to them.

[@cbbcbb6803]

The original sin was the Pilgrims presuming to claim ownership of land in a country foreign to them and then actually seized said land and settling with every intention of staying settled on said land forever.

[@CynicalHistorian]

Not just the pilgrims, but all Europeans who came to these shores

[@iattacku2773]

Maybe you ran out of time but I think for #10 “ small government” you should have included examples of what some of the founders believe government should be to show the differing perspectives of “ small government”. A good comparison would be the Jefferson vs Hamilton view of government. Or even bring up how Thomas pain wanted some form of government pension.

[@paisleepunk]

here's an easy one: a lack of a standing army

[@stephenballard3759]

I had somehow developed an entirely differnt premise on one of your points. I had always understood it to mean that, during the years of the framing of the Constitution, the Founders had really fucked up by accepting The 2/3 Compromise and allowing slavery continued existence.

[@douglasphillips5870]

The first time I heard the term conservative revolution it was used in comparing the American and French revolutions. It makes sense in that context.

[@zooblestyx]

Well crafted presentation! I concur with all of its points! Also: KITTY!!!!!

[@Stoneworks]

Great video, I just wish the people who I would like to send it to were academic enough to understand it lmao

[@loub1105]

Bravo! You must remember - those who get nasty and say vile things are opposed to what you have put together here. Yes, they have watched your video. Congratulations! ❤

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

Worth noting that July 4th independence day celebrations happened as early as 1777. So while that date in 1776 may not have been as clearly significant, by the following year, it was already gaining popularity as the date of our founding... even though we were still losing the war at the time.

[@theskintexpat-themightygreegor]

You missed something there. 1776 was about 13 years before the United States was founded, as the video made clear, I thought. That was simply the year that the various colonies publicly declared their independence. It was FAR from a done deal at that point, and they weren't even talking about forming a unified nation at that point. That's just how it turned out. In 1776, it could have gone any number of ways.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

@@theskintexpat-themightygreegor The point I took away from that was that there is no single clear founding date. Which is a point I agree with. July 4, 1776 was celebrated by some towns as early as July 4, 1777, according to Ratification, The People Debate the Constitution. 1789 was when the operation of the Constitution began. You could also argue for 1788 when the Constitution was ratified (took a few months to create the first Congress and elect Washington President). The first actions taken under the Constitution were taken in 1787, ratification under Article VII, followed by elections under Article I and Article II in 1788 and Virginia's call for a convention under Article V also in 1788. The Federal government met for the first time in 1789, but the states were already using the Constitution before that. Then there's also the creation of the Articles of Confederation in 1781 and the end of the war, the treaties with France and England. There is no 1 clear date. That was the point he made. And my point is that, while that is true, they were already celebrating July 4th 1776 by July 4th 1777 as the symbolic date.

[@gigiwills7851]

That was refreshing. :) I am 75 and frequently wonder if people were asleep in history and civics class in high school. If someone told me civics and history had been done away with, as topics to study in public school, I would probably believe it.

[@CozumelTy]

This was smart, well thought out and detailed. Impressive. Thank you.

[@Rastlov]

The Citizens United vs. FEC ruling changed the Preamble of our constitution. (changes are in parenthesis). "We the people (corporations) of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union(profit margin) , establish (in)justice, insure domestic Tranquility(conflict), provide (a desperate need) for the common defense, promote the general (corporate) Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity(Shareholders), do ordain(undermine) and establish(abolish) this Constitution of the United States of America.

[@marygard4608]

Thomas Paine also wanted to offer the vote to educated women. You see how far that went.

[@ElectricPi]

On the 10 commandments, you said that the founders violated some of them. I would go further and say that of the ~14 rules in the '10 commandments' only two are not things that the U.S. Constitution (as amended) protects, and those two are tautologies. 1) I am the lord thy god. - Constitution protects religious liberty, so no you are not my god. 2) No gods before me - nope 3) no graven images - Freedom of speech/expression says nope 4) name in vain - again 1st amendment says nope. 5) sabbath day holy - freedom of religion and expression say nope. 6) honor mom and dad. - freedom of expression says you can call your parents whatever you want. 7) thou shalt not 'kill' - this one people think is law, but not really; the better translation is thou shalt not murder, and murder is unlawful killing, so it really just says unlawful killing is unlawful. This is completely tautological, but if we look at what lawful killing looked like then vs now, we'll find a lot of differences. 8) no adultery - we have bodily autonomy. Adultery may have legal consequences, but it is not and cannot be illegal. 9) no stealing - stealing is unlawful taking; it is unlawful to take unlawfully. Tautological. 10) no lying. Libel/slander/purgarie are illegal, but lying generally is not. 11) don't covet houses. - our whole society is built on coveting; this thought crime is not law 12) no coveting wives - another thought crime that is not law 13) coveting slaves, and whatever else. - if someone covets their neighbors slaves, there is definitely a crime being committed, but not by the person coveting (though they apparently want to commit that crime) 14) pile up these stones - nope So our constitution is in opposition to every one of the commandments that it is even possible to be in opposition to. Legalizing unlawful (not to be confused with previously unlawful) killing or taking is logically impossible; as soon as you legalize it, it stops being unlawful so it stops being a violation of the commandment. No system of law can possibly violate the commandments against murder or theft. If it is legal for me to kill someone under certain circumstances, that killing cannot be murder regardless of whether a law makes it legal to kill in self defense, or on a whim, a legal killing isn't murder. Similarly if I take something legally it isn't theft; if the law said that I could take your car by adverse possession (essentially squatting) for 5 minutes, then most of what is now car theft would become legal, but it would also stop being theft at all.

[@shawnthompson3059]

Thank you for this resource. I live in Florida so I'm definitely sharing to help combat the disinformation that runs rampant in this state

[@capitalb5889]

One myth is that the colonists rose as one to fight the British. In fact 20-30% fought forbthe Crown, making it a civil war as well as a revolutionary one.

[@nickd4310]

The overthrow of monarchy is also a myth. in Great Britain, Parliament had been supreme since the Revolution of 1688. However, pamphleteers quickly found that focusing their anger on an individual in the person of George III had greater persuasive power. So while early documents referred to the King in Parliament, which was and still is the official name of the body, later documents just referred to the king.

[@thomaspaine7098]

From what I’ve heard king George refused to allow colonists to have representation in parliament

[@nickd4310]

@@thomaspaine7098 Only Parliament can decide whether people outside of the country can be represented. Under the Union with Scotland Act 1706, the English parliament allowed Scotland 16 peers and 45 MPs but since then has not created any electoral districts outside the country. Coincidentally, the U.S. does not allow people in its overseas territories to be represented by members of Congress, although it allows non-voting delegates. But we wouldn't say that President Joe Biden refuses to allow Puerto Ricans to be represented in Congress.

[@Rayzersword]

Lets be real, the kind of people who distrust experts like yourself in these kinds of matters, aren't the kind of people who check sources.

[@jackthorton10]

On that we agree, some people just want to fly their flags with the burning of the flag pole holding it upward