Myths of the American Revolution

A noted historian debunks the conventional wisdom about America's War of Independence

By John Ferling
Illustration by Joe Ciardiello
Smithsonian magazine, January 2010, Subscribe

King George III and Lord North British leaders

Britain's leaders made a miscalculation when they assumed that resistance from the colonies, as the Earl of Dartmouth predicted, could not be "very formidable." (Illustration by Joe Ciardiello)

(Page 7 of 7)

Britain still might have prevailed in 1777. London had formulated a sound strategy that called for Howe, with his large force, which included a naval arm, to advance up the Hudson River and rendezvous at Albany with General Burgoyne, who was to invade New York from Canada. Britain’s objective was to cut New England off from the other nine states by taking the Hudson. When the rebels did engage—the thinking went—they would face a giant British pincer maneuver that would doom them to catastrophic losses. Though the operation offered the prospect of decisive victory, Howe scuttled it. Believing that Burgoyne needed no assistance and obsessed by a desire to capture Philadelphia—home of the Continental Congress—Howe opted to move against Pennsylvania instead. He took Philadelphia, but he accomplished little by his action. Meanwhile, Burgoyne suffered total defeat at Saratoga.

Most historians have maintained that Britain had no hope of victory after 1777, but that assumption constitutes another myth of this war. Twenty-four months into its Southern Strategy, Britain was close to reclaiming substantial territory within its once-vast American empire. Royal authority had been restored in Georgia, and much of South Carolina was occupied by the British.

As 1781 dawned, Washington warned that his army was “exhausted” and the citizenry “discontented.” John Adams believed that France, faced with mounting debts and having failed to win a single victory in the American theater, would not remain in the war beyond 1781. “We are in the Moment of Crisis,” he wrote. Rochambeau feared that 1781 would see the “last struggle of an expiring patriotism.” Both Washington and Adams assumed that unless the United States and France scored a decisive victory in 1781, the outcome of the war would be determined at a conference of Europe’s great powers.

Stalemated wars often conclude with belligerents retaining what they possessed at the moment an armistice is reached. Had the outcome been determined by a European peace conference, Britain would likely have retained Canada, the trans-Appalachian West, part of present-day Maine, New York City and Long Island, Georgia and much of South Carolina, Florida (acquired from Spain in a previous war) and several Caribbean islands. To keep this great empire, which would have encircled the tiny United States, Britain had only to avoid decisive losses in 1781.Yet Cornwallis’ stunning defeat at Yorktown in October cost Britain everything but Canada.

The Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783, ratified the American victory and recognized the existence of the new United States. General Washington, addressing a gathering of soldiers at West Point, told the men that they had secured America’s “independence and sovereignty.” The new nation, he said, faced “enlarged prospects of happiness,” adding that all free Americans could enjoy “personal independence.” The passage of time would demonstrate that Washington, far from creating yet another myth surrounding the outcome of the war, had voiced the real promise of the new nation.

Historian John Ferling’s most recent book is The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon. Illustrator Joe Ciardiello lives in Milford, New Jersey.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story placed Kings Mountain in North Carolina instead of South Carolina. We regret the error.

We think we know the Revolutionary War. After all, the American Revolution and the war that accompanied it not only determined the nation we would become but also continue to define who we are. The Declaration of Independence, the Midnight Ride, Valley Forge—the whole glorious chronicle of the colonists’ rebellion against tyranny is in the American DNA. Often it is the Revolution that is a child’s first encounter with history.

Yet much of what we know is not entirely true. Perhaps more than any defining moment in American history, the War of Independence is swathed in beliefs not borne out by the facts. Here, in order to form a more perfect understanding, the most significant myths of the Revolutionary War are reassessed.

I. Great Britain Did Not Know What It Was Getting Into

In the course of England’s long and unsuccessful attempt to crush the American Revolution, the myth arose that its government, under Prime Minister Frederick, Lord North, had acted in haste. Accusations circulating at the time—later to become conventional wisdom—held that the nation’s political leaders had failed to comprehend the gravity of the challenge.

Actually, the British cabinet, made up of nearly a score of ministers, first considered resorting to military might as early as January 1774, when word of the Boston Tea Party reached London. (Recall that on December 16, 1773, protesters had boarded British vessels in Boston Harbor and destroyed cargoes of tea, rather than pay a tax imposed by Parliament.) Contrary to popular belief both then and now, Lord North’s government did not respond impulsively to the news. Throughout early 1774, the prime minister and his cabinet engaged in lengthy debate on whether coercive actions would lead to war. A second question was considered as well: Could Britain win such a war?

By March 1774, North’s government had opted for punitive measures that fell short of declaring war. Parliament enacted the Coercive Acts—or Intolerable Acts, as Americans called them—and applied the legislation to Massachusetts alone, to punish the colony for its provocative act. Britain’s principal action was to close Boston Harbor until the tea had been paid for. England also installed Gen. Thomas Gage, commander of the British Army in America, as governor of the colony. Politicians in London chose to heed the counsel of Gage, who opined that the colonists would “be lyons whilst we are lambs but if we take the resolute part they will be very meek.”

Britain, of course, miscalculated hugely. In September 1774, colonists convened the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia; the members voted to embargo British commerce until all British taxes and the Coercive Acts were repealed. News of that vote reached London in December. A second round of deliberations within North’s ministry ensued for nearly six weeks.

Throughout its deliberations, North’s government agreed on one point: the Americans would pose little challenge in the event of war. The Americans had neither a standing army nor a navy; few among them were experienced officers. Britain possessed a professional army and the world’s greatest navy. Furthermore, the colonists had virtually no history of cooperating with one another, even in the face of danger. In addition, many in the cabinet were swayed by disparaging assessments of American soldiers leveled by British officers in earlier wars. For instance, during the French and Indian War (1754-63), Brig. Gen. James Wolfe had described America’s soldiers as “cowardly dogs.” Henry Ellis, the royal governor of Georgia, nearly simultaneously asserted that the colonists were a “poor species of fighting men” given to “a want of bravery.”

Still, as debate continued, skeptics—especially within Britain’s army and navy—raised troubling questions. Could the Royal Navy blockade the 1,000-mile-long American coast? Couldn’t two million free colonists muster a force of 100,000 or so citizen-soldiers, nearly four times the size of Britain’s army in 1775? Might not an American army of this size replace its losses more easily than Britain? Was it possible to supply an army operating 3,000 miles from home? Could Britain subdue a rebellion across 13 colonies in an area some six times the size of England? Could the British Army operate deep in America’s interior, far from coastal supply bases? Would a protracted war bankrupt Britain? Would France and Spain, England’s age-old enemies, aid American rebels? Was Britain risking starting a broader war?

After the Continental Congress convened, King George III told his ministers that “blows must decide” whether the Americans “submit or triumph.”

North’s government agreed. To back down, the ministers believed, would be to lose the colonies. Confident of Britain’s overwhelming military superiority and hopeful that colonial resistance would collapse after one or two humiliating defeats, they chose war. The Earl of Dartmouth, who was the American Secretary, ordered General Gage to use “a vigorous Exertion of...Force” to crush the rebellion in Massachusetts. Resistance from the Bay Colony, Dartmouth added, “cannot be very formidable.”

II. Americans Of All Stripes Took Up Arms Out Of Patriotism

The term “spirit of ‘76” refers to the colonists’ patriotic zeal and has always seemed synonymous with the idea that every able-bodied male colonist resolutely served, and suffered, throughout the eight-year war.

To be sure, the initial rally to arms was impressive. When the British Army marched out of Boston on April 19, 1775, messengers on horseback, including Boston silversmith Paul Revere, fanned out across New England to raise the alarm. Summoned by the feverish pealing of church bells, militiamen from countless hamlets hurried toward Concord, Massachusetts, where the British regulars planned to destroy a rebel arsenal. Thousands of militiamen arrived in time to fight; 89 men from 23 towns in Massachusetts were killed or wounded on that first day of war, April 19, 1775. By the next morning, Massachusetts had 12 regiments in the field. Connecticut soon mobilized a force of 6,000, one-quarter of its military-age men. Within a week, 16,000 men from the four New England colonies formed a siege army outside British-occupied Boston. In June, the Continental Congress took over the New England army, creating a national force, the Continental Army. Thereafter, men throughout America took up arms. It seemed to the British regulars that every able-bodied American male had become a soldier.

But as the colonists discovered how difficult and dangerous military service could be, enthusiasm waned. Many men preferred to remain home, in the safety of what Gen. George Washington described as their “Chimney Corner.” Early in the war, Washington wrote that he despaired of “compleating the army by Voluntary Inlistments.” Mindful that volunteers had rushed to enlist when hostilities began, Washington predicted that “after the first emotions are over,” those who were willing to serve from a belief in the “goodness of the cause” would amount to little more than “a drop in the Ocean.” He was correct. As 1776 progressed, many colonies were compelled to entice soldiers with offers of cash bounties, clothing, blankets and extended furloughs or enlistments shorter than the one-year term of service established by Congress.

The following year, when Congress mandated that men who enlisted must sign on for three years or the duration of the conflict, whichever came first, offers of cash and land bounties became an absolute necessity. The states and the army also turned to slick-tongued recruiters to round up volunteers. General Washington had urged conscription, stating that “the Government must have recourse to coercive measures.” In April 1777, Congress recommended a draft to the states. By the end of 1778, most states were conscripting men when Congress’ voluntary enlistment quotas were not met.

Moreover, beginning in 1778, the New England states, and eventually all Northern states, enlisted African-Americans, a practice that Congress had initially forbidden. Ultimately, some 5,000 blacks bore arms for the United States, approximately 5 percent of the total number of men who served in the Continental Army. The African-American soldiers made an important contribution to America’s ultimate victory. In 1781, Baron Ludwig von Closen, a veteran officer in the French Army, remarked that the “best [regiment] under arms” in the Continental Army was one in which 75 percent of the soldiers were African-Americans.

Longer enlistments radically changed the composition of the Army. Washington’s troops in 1775-76 had represented a cross section of the free male population. But few who owned farms were willing to serve for the duration, fearing loss of their property if years passed without producing revenue from which to pay taxes. After 1777, the average Continental soldier was young, single, propertyless, poor and in many cases an outright pauper. In some states, such as Pennsylvania, up to one in four soldiers was an impoverished recent immigrant. Patriotism aside, cash and land bounties offered an unprecedented chance for economic mobility for these men. Joseph Plumb Martin of Milford, Connecticut, acknowledged that he had enlisted for the money. Later, he would recollect the calculation he had made at the time: “As I must go, I might as well endeavor to get as much for my skin as I could.” For three-quarters of the war, few middle-class Americans bore arms in the Continental Army, although thousands did serve in militias.

III. Continental Soldiers Were Always Ragged And Hungry

Accounts of shoeless continental army soldiers leaving bloody footprints in the snow or going hungry in a land of abundance are all too accurate. Take, for example, the experience of Connecticut’s Private Martin. While serving with the Eighth Connecticut Continental Regiment in the autumn of 1776, Martin went for days with little more to eat than a handful of chestnuts and, at one point, a portion of roast sheep’s head, remnants of a meal prepared for those he sarcastically referred to as his “gentleman officers.” Ebenezer Wild, a Massachusetts soldier who served at Valley Forge in the terrible winter of 1777-78, would recall that he subsisted for days on “a leg of nothing.” One of his comrades, Dr. Albigence Waldo, a Continental Army surgeon, later reported that many men survived largely on what were known as fire cakes (flour and water baked over coals). One soldier, Waldo wrote, complained that his “glutted Gutts are turned to Pasteboard.” The Army’s supply system, imperfect at best, at times broke down altogether; the result was misery and want.

But that was not always the case. So much heavy clothing arrived from France at the beginning of the winter in 1779 that Washington was compelled to locate storage facilities for his surplus.

In a long war during which American soldiers were posted from upper New York to lower Georgia, conditions faced by the troops varied widely. For instance, at the same time that Washington’s siege army at Boston in 1776 was well supplied, many American soldiers, engaged in the failed invasion of Quebec staged from Fort Ticonderoga in New York, endured near starvation. While one soldier in seven was dying from hunger and disease at Valley Forge, young Private Martin, stationed only a few miles away in Downingtown, Pennsylvania, was assigned to patrols that foraged daily for army provisions. “We had very good provisions all winter,” he would write, adding that he had lived in “a snug room.” In the spring after Valley Forge, he encountered one of his former officers. “Where have you been this winter?” inquired the officer. “Why you are as fat as a pig.”

IV. The Militia Was Useless

The nation’s first settlers adopted the British militia system, which required all able-bodied men between 16 and 60 to bear arms. Some 100,000 men served in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. Probably twice that number soldiered as militiamen, for the most part defending the home front, functioning as a police force and occasionally engaging in enemy surveillance. If a militia company was summoned to active duty and sent to the front lines to augment the Continentals, it usually remained mobilized for no more than 90 days.

Some Americans emerged from the war convinced that the militia had been largely ineffective. No one did more to sully its reputation than General Washington, who insisted that a decision to “place any dependence on Militia is assuredly resting on a broken staff.”

Militiamen were older, on average, than the Continental soldiers and received only perfunctory training; few had experienced combat. Washington complained that militiamen had failed to exhibit “a brave & manly opposition” in the battles of 1776 on Long Island and in Manhattan. At Camden, South Carolina, in August 1780, militiamen panicked in the face of advancing redcoats. Throwing down their weapons and running for safety, they were responsible for one of the worst defeats of the war.

Yet in 1775, militiamen had fought with surpassing bravery along the Concord Road and at Bunker Hill. Nearly 40 percent of soldiers serving under Washington in his crucial Christmas night victory at Trenton in 1776 were militiamen. In New York state, half the American force in the vital Saratoga campaign of 1777 consisted of militiamen. They also contributed substantially to American victories at Kings Mountain, South Carolina, in 1780 and Cowpens, South Carolina, the following year. In March 1781, Gen. Nathanael Greene adroitly deployed his militiamen in the Battle of Guilford Courthouse (fought near present-day Greensboro, North Carolina). In that engagement, he inflicted such devastating losses on the British that they gave up the fight for North Carolina.

The militia had its shortcomings, to be sure, but America could not have won the war without it. As a British general, Earl Cornwallis, wryly put it in a letter in 1781, “I will not say much in praise of the militia, but the list of British officers and soldiers killed and wounded by them...proves but too fatally they are not wholly contemptible.”

V. Saratoga Was The War’s Turning Point

On October 17, 1777, British Gen. John Burgoyne surrendered 5,895 men to American forces outside Saratoga, New York. Those losses, combined with the 1,300 men killed, wounded and captured during the preceding five months of Burgoyne’s campaign to reach Albany in upstate New York, amounted to nearly one-quarter of those serving under the British flag in America in 1777.

The defeat persuaded France to form a military alliance with the United States. Previously, the French, even though they believed that London would be fatally weakened by the loss of its American colonies, had not wished to take a chance on backing the new American nation. General Washington, who rarely made optimistic pronouncements, exulted that France’s entry into the war in February 1778 had introduced “a most happy tone to all our affairs,” as it “must put the Independency of America out of all manner of dispute.”

But Saratoga was not the turning point of the war. Protracted conflicts—the Revolutionary War was America’s longest military engagement until Vietnam nearly 200 years later—are seldom defined by a single decisive event. In addition to Saratoga, four other key moments can be identified. The first was the combined effect of victories in the fighting along the Concord Road on April 19, 1775, and at Bunker Hill near Boston two months later, on June 17. Many colonists had shared Lord North’s belief that American citizen-soldiers could not stand up to British regulars. But in those two engagements, fought in the first 60 days of the war, American soldiers—all militiamen—inflicted huge casualties. The British lost nearly 1,500 men in those encounters, three times the American toll. Without the psychological benefits of those battles, it is debatable whether a viable Continental Army could have been raised in that first year of war or whether public morale would have withstood the terrible defeats of 1776.

Between August and November of 1776, Washington’s army was driven from Long Island, New York City proper and the rest of Manhattan Island, with some 5,000 men killed, wounded and captured. But at Trenton in late December 1776, Washington achieved a great victory, destroying a Hessian force of nearly 1,000 men; a week later, on January 3, he defeated a British force at Princeton, New Jersey. Washington’s stunning triumphs, which revived hopes of victory and permitted recruitment in 1777, were a second turning point.

A third turning point occurred when Congress abandoned one-year enlistments and transformed the Continental Army into a standing army, made up of regulars who volunteered—or were conscripted—for long-term service. A standing army was contrary to American tradition and was viewed as unacceptable by citizens who understood that history was filled with instances of generals who had used their armies to gain dictatorial powers. Among the critics was Massachusetts’ John Adams, then a delegate to the Second Continental Congress. In 1775, he wrote that he feared a standing army would become an “armed monster” composed of the “meanest, idlest, most intemperate and worthless” men. By autumn, 1776, Adams had changed his view, remarking that unless the length of enlistment was extended, “our inevitable destruction will be the Consequence.” At last, Washington would get the army he had wanted from the outset; its soldiers would be better trained, better disciplined and more experienced than the men who had served in 1775-76.

The campaign that unfolded in the South during 1780 and 1781 was the final turning point of the conflict. After failing to crush the rebellion in New England and the mid-Atlantic states, the British turned their attention in 1778 to the South, hoping to retake Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia. At first the Southern Strategy, as the British termed the initiative, achieved spectacular results. Within 20 months, the redcoats had wiped out three American armies, retaken Savannah and Charleston, occupied a substantial portion of the South Carolina backcountry, and killed, wounded or captured 7,000 American soldiers, nearly equaling the British losses at Saratoga. Lord George Germain, Britain’s American Secretary after 1775, declared that the Southern victories augured a “speedy and happy termination of the American war.”

But the colonists were not broken. In mid-1780, organized partisan bands, composed largely of guerrilla fighters, struck from within South Carolina’s swamps and tangled forests to ambush redcoat supply trains and patrols. By summer’s end, the British high command acknowledged that South Carolina, a colony they had recently declared pacified, was “in an absolute state of rebellion.” Worse was yet to come. In October 1780, rebel militia and backcountry volunteers destroyed an army of more than 1,000 Loyalists at Kings Mountain in South Carolina. After that rout, Cornwallis found it nearly impossible to persuade Loyalists to join the cause.

In January 1781, Cornwallis marched an army of more than 4,000 men to North Carolina, hoping to cut supply routes that sustained partisans farther south. In battles at Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse and in an exhausting pursuit of the Army under Gen. Nathanael Greene, Cornwallis lost some 1,700 men, nearly 40 percent of the troops under his command at the outset of the North Carolina campaign. In April 1781, despairing of crushing the insurgency in the Carolinas, he took his army into Virginia, where he hoped to sever supply routes linking the upper and lower South. It was a fateful decision, as it put Cornwallis on a course that would lead that autumn to disaster at Yorktown, where he was trapped and compelled to surrender more than 8,000 men on October 19, 1781. The next day, General Washington informed the Continental Army that “the glorious event” would send “general Joy [to] every breast” in America. Across the sea, Lord North reacted to the news as if he had “taken a ball in the breast,” reported the messenger who delivered the bad tidings. “O God,” the prime minister exclaimed, “it is all over.”

VI. General Washington Was A Brilliant Tactician And Strategist

Among the hundreds of eulogies delivered after the death of George Washington in 1799, Timothy Dwight, president of Yale College, averred that the general’s military greatness consisted principally in his “formation of extensive and masterly plans” and a “watchful seizure of every advantage.” It was the prevailing view and one that has been embraced by many historians.

In fact, Washington’s missteps revealed failings as a strategist. No one understood his limitations better than Washington himself who, on the eve of the New York campaign in 1776, confessed to Congress his “want of experience to move on a large scale” and his “limited and contracted knowledge . . . in Military Matters.”

In August 1776, the Continental Army was routed in its first test on Long Island in part because Washington failed to properly reconnoiter and he attempted to defend too large an area for the size of his army. To some extent, Washington’s nearly fatal inability to make rapid decisions resulted in the November losses of Fort Washington on Manhattan Island and Fort Lee in New Jersey, defeats that cost the colonists more than one-quarter of the army’s soldiers and precious weaponry and military stores. Washington did not take the blame for what had gone wrong. Instead, he advised Congress of his “want of confidence in the Generality of the Troops.”

In the fall of 1777, when Gen. William Howe invaded Pennsylvania, Washington committed his entire army in an attempt to prevent the loss of Philadelphia. During the Battle of Brandywine, in September, he once again froze with indecision. For nearly two hours information poured into headquarters that the British were attempting a flanking maneuver—a move that would, if successful, entrap much of the Continental Army—and Washington failed to respond. At day’s end, a British sergeant accurately perceived that Washington had “escaped a total overthrow, that must have been the consequence of an hours more daylight.”

Later, Washington was painfully slow to grasp the significance of the war in the Southern states. For the most part, he committed troops to that theater only when Congress ordered him to do so. By then, it was too late to prevent the surrender of Charleston in May 1780 and the subsequent losses among American troops in the South. Washington also failed to see the potential of a campaign against the British in Virginia in 1780 and 1781, prompting Comte de Rochambeau, commander of the French Army in America, to write despairingly that the American general “did not conceive the affair of the south to be such urgency.” Indeed, Rochambeau, who took action without Washington’s knowledge, conceived the Virginia campaign that resulted in the war’s decisive encounter, the siege of Yorktown in the autumn of 1781.

Much of the war’s decision-making was hidden from the public. Not even Congress was aware that the French, not Washington, had formulated the strategy that led to America’s triumph. During Washington’s presidency, the American pamphleteer Thomas Paine, then living in France, revealed much of what had occurred. In 1796 Paine published a “Letter to George Washington,” in which he claimed that most of General Washington’s supposed achievements were “fraudulent.” “You slept away your time in the field” after 1778, Paine charged, arguing that Gens. Horatio Gates and Greene were more responsible for America’s victory than Washington.

There was some truth to Paine’s acid comments, but his indictment failed to recognize that one can be a great military leader without being a gifted tactician or strategist. Washington’s character, judgment, industry and meticulous habits, as well as his political and diplomatic skills, set him apart from others. In the final analysis, he was the proper choice to serve as commander of the Continental Army.

VII. Great Britain Could Never Have Won The War

Once the revolutionary war was lost, some in Britain argued that it had been unwinnable. For generals and admirals who were defending their reputations, and for patriots who found it painful to acknowledge defeat, the concept of foreordained failure was alluring. Nothing could have been done, or so the argument went, to have altered the outcome. Lord North was condemned, not for having lost the war, but for having led his country into a conflict in which victory was impossible.

In reality, Britain might well have won the war. The battle for New York in 1776 gave England an excellent opportunity for a decisive victory. France had not yet allied with the Americans. Washington and most of his lieutenants were rank amateurs. Continental Army soldiers could not have been more untried. On Long Island, in New York City and in upper Manhattan, on Harlem Heights, Gen. William Howe trapped much of the American Army and might have administered a fatal blow. Cornered in the hills of Harlem, even Washington admitted that if Howe attacked, the Continental Army would be “cut off” and faced with the choice of fighting its way out “under every disadvantage” or being starved into submission. But the excessively cautious Howe was slow to act, ultimately allowing Washington to slip away.

Historian John Ferling’s most recent book is The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon. Illustrator Joe Ciardiello lives in Milford, New Jersey.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story placed Kings Mountain in North Carolina instead of South Carolina. We regret the error.

Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.

Comments (75)

the war commander game is closed in facebook and want play this game and broke band

Posted by heart shady on January 16,2013 | 12:58 PM

I want to thank the blogger very much not only for this post,but also for his all previous efforts. I found this Google search to be greatly interesting. I will be coming back to your site for more information.

Posted by silver11001 on January 14,2013 | 09:49 AM

It is soooo not worth reading. It has like too many words and stuff. And I totally not reading it again.

Posted by Diana Leon on October 23,2012 | 02:43 PM

The greatest myth of the American revolution was that it was anything other than background context for round 3 of the second Hundred Years War, and thatindependence wasn't almost entirely down to French intervention.

Posted by Boosra on June 20,2012 | 12:26 PM

Some of my relatives fought on both sides of the war. My mother's family came to America from England in 1924, and there is a myth in our family that our ancestor, Henry Walker, was a soldier under Lord North. Now I know who my ancestors were who fought on the side of the Americans, but how could one find out about the other side? Didn't they keep lists, or start organizations like "DAR" in Great Britain?

Posted by alexandra on May 9,2012 | 12:19 AM

Ask yourself this question. Did anything really change since before the revolution.

Posted by Mike on April 22,2012 | 09:40 PM

An interesting article on a fascinating era of history. However, as an Englishman I too can see the irony of the colonists shouting for 'Liberty' when many on the Congress side were fighting to keep their slaves and wealthy lifestyle.
Still, hypocrisy exists in all wars.

Posted by Perry Clarke on February 29,2012 | 04:37 AM

I'm curious about another myth -- the old "sword-marks-on-the-staircase" story adopted by so many houses with Revolutionary War history.

Forever associated with Carter's Grove and Banastre Tarleton, I've heard people speak of "insulting a house" [not unlike marking one's territory] to describe the activity of troops hacking/cutting/slashing the staircases in areas that were hotbeds of skirmishing, raids and plundering by all sides.

Posted by Sandy Levins on December 6,2011 | 11:29 AM

Another myth of the Revolution is that Benedict Arnold was a complete villain and scumbag. Yes, his treason was wrong, but if it wasn't for his brilliance as a military commander in the early part of the war America would have likely lost. He even partly financed some of the war effort out of his own pocket in the beginning. Plus there were many mitigating factors in his decision to switch sides, such as the fact that he had his leg shattered at Saratoga; he was often unfairly passed up for promotions; he was court-martialed in Philadelphia for relatively minor matters (and was found innocent of most of the charges); he was reprimanded reluctantly by Washington--who was ordered by Congress to do so--for misconduct; he married a loyalist woman who encouraged his treason; etc. Closer to the truth is that besides all the previously mentioned motivation, he thought Congress was mishandling the war and, thus, we were about to lose and that the British would not only pay him handsomely but also treat him as a hero if he pulled off the surrender of West Point successfully, and all of that culminated in his notorious, and, of course, unsuccessful decision to switch sides. It was much more a terrible lapse of judgement by an angry and broken man than the "treacherous act of a heartless villain."

Posted by Andrew on November 26,2011 | 04:48 AM

Yet another American who doesn't know the difference between "England" and "English" between "Britain" and "British", and the fact that they are not interchangeable...

Posted by Paddy Boot on October 10,2011 | 12:13 PM

Another Revolutionary War Myth:
The Revolutionary War was fought for the benefit of the common people.

In reality, the Revolutionary war was about the elite business-class revolting against the blood line aristocracy they had to bribe and pay taxes to in order to stay in business. All during a time when industrialization was beginning to take hold and become the dominant factor in the economy. What the Revolutionary War created was a Meritocracy of slave owners, land owners and business owners who carefully crafted a government with themselves in control. The proof is that they were the only ones who were given the right to vote by the original Constitution of 1790. They conveniently restricted control of government to the aristocratically (meritocracy) controlled state governments under Article X, of which they participated. They restricted the influence of religious leaders on their control by not establishing a national religion. They rigged control over Congress by the structure of the US Senate, where a minority (a handful of men they could own) could stalemate any effort in Congress that favored the people. And lastly, Congress did it all behind closed doors.

Posted by PragmaticStatistic on July 5,2011 | 02:06 PM

It is interesting to me what we Americans think we know about our Revolutionary War and what are the ACTUAL facts of the war. I think this piece was greatly written and I believe that we got taught mostly opinions and little to no fact.

Posted by Maria-Magdalena Laning on July 1,2011 | 08:59 PM

It is interesting what is recorded as US history and what is not. On a more personal level here is some that was not part of the Narrative of US History but play an important role in Spanish Colonial Louisiana and its support given during the American Revolution.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1575582583/?starttime=1176060

This is no myth. This is part of my Louisiana ancestry. Hope it inspire and encourage those of you with your own personal ancestral stories to share them. If not, what we will have left that is called American history is lots of Myths and legends.

Posted by michael henderson on February 4,2011 | 02:50 PM

What about the Dutchers?

Posted by Phellonie J. Bobbs on January 12,2011 | 01:36 PM

Nice to read some largely unknown and interesting views of the history our national education thrusts upon us. Another viewpoint never mentioned when I was at school is the reaction of the ordinary citizens of Britain to their governments military postures...this I should add has many historical examples right up to the moment I write. The old 'passed on 'judgements' are almost certainly the viewpoints of the then current elites but the reactions of the general population allows very different opinions. There was within the British communities much indecision no doubt but overall the response seems to have been sympathy for the 'Colonials' - this showed in 'on the spot' reporting.... strikes and industrial actions grew to a point when the government were forced to take action to deflect public opinion and protect their internal interests. It is easy to see parallels in our own countries recent past with Vietnam as a case in point - another unpopular and ultimately ruinous elite war. Our present involvement in the ME follows the same pattern and will doubtless be portrayed in the future in a similar way. With few exceptions I think you can probably say the majority in any country will resent and reject resort to war - as did the Britons citizens in their countries colonial adventures.

Posted by malcshee on December 26,2010 | 10:14 PM

How about "France was the rebels's only European ally." Ignorance of the Spanish role in the war is endemic.

Posted by William Bur s on December 26,2010 | 11:08 AM

Surprised no-one has pointed out the following:

1) Colonials were quick to cry 'liberty!' when many were also slave-owners

2) Britain saved the 13 colonies from falling into French hands during the French Indian war (subsequent taxes to help defray the cost of the war were eventually withdrawn by London)

3) The 13 colonies had long been self-governing (prior to 1773-74), taking full advantage of Britain's policy of 'benign neglect'.

Britain grossly mismanaged their relationship with their colonies, but the latter were also extraordinarily ungrateful post-French Indian war

Posted by Loyalist on October 25,2010 | 02:06 PM

Wonderful article. I love learning about misconceptions in history, particularly ones that make us "look better" or had it harder or expose our bias.

Posted by Timothy on September 23,2010 | 12:24 AM

This is a great article, but unfortunately repeats the common mistake of overlooking Cornwallis’ duel with Lafayette across central Virginia during 1781. This was a remarkable campaign of thrust and parry between the veteran British general and youthful Frenchman. It was one of the most interesting (and now little appreciated) episodes of the Revolutionary War. Washington could not have cornered Cornwallis without this prelude. Forgotten also are Jack Jouett’s ride and Thomas Jefferson’s narrow escape from Banastre Tarleton, the Battle of Petersburg, the surrender of Alexandria to the British, and Francisco’s fight. One would hope that Prof. John Ferling will one day turn his attention to this forgotten period of the war.

Posted by Andrew on August 20,2010 | 05:48 PM

When in college I had a history Prof. that told us we had already read our own "approved" American history tales. Now we need to study what the other students of the various countries study about the same events. Then we may get at least half of the truth as they only read about the "approved" history tales. Then can understand their point of view and human nature in general, as that is the reason for the study of history to understand and hopefully not repeat it as we continue to do, it seems all too often.

Posted by Thomas Harris on July 16,2010 | 08:35 PM

Frankly, this is an article on myth building. or instance, it talks of African slaves “joining” the rebellion when in fact most were sent there to take the place of their masters. A law had been passed in the south to force all adult males to join the rebellion when military service was demanded of them. Loyalists would of course refuse, which would then result either in their imprisonment or a lynching. Of course, rich southern rebels would not want to go fight, so this law had the proviso that a slave could be sent in their place. This law was the main recruitment source for those African units.

The British offered freedom to any slave who joined them, resulting in over 10,000 following Cornwallis around as he moved through the south. The British had freed slaves serving in Pioneer and combat units and they were all volunteers. When the British left the colonies, they lived up to their word, taking many freed slaves to Nova Scotia and Freetown, Sierra Leone.

Another myth has the rebellion as the poor American fighting the rich British or the rich Loyalist, when it was mostly the rich colonist who drove the rebellion. Rich southern plantation owners were virtually 100% for the rebellion, no doubt driven by the abolitionist sentiment that was then circulating in the British parliament. The use of “freedom” and “tyranny” were the rallying cry for the rebellion (the WMD of the time) when in fact it was all about anti-Catholicism, land and money. The damage done to land speculation companies such as the Ohio Company by the Royal Proclamantion of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 drove much of the rebellion’s sentiments. Both Washington and Franklin were investors in the Ohio Company.

Posted by Bill Attercliffe on May 3,2010 | 02:21 PM

Another myth is that most of the fighting was mainly in New England and the Northern Colonies. New England was a better-read region due to it's Puritan roots and the battles are well-documented and publisized.

Most of the fighting actually took place in the South, specifically South Carolina. There are estimates by National Park Ranger John Robertson that 560-700 battles took place there. More than any other colony. The war was so extensive that the Colony was devastated financially for many years afterwards. Virginia also had a Paul Revere named Jack Jouett.
There were also battles all over Georgia, North Carolina and as far South as Pensacola, FL and Mobile, AL. Edenton, NC Wilmington, NC and Charleston, SC also had Tea Parties like the one in Boston. Liberty trees also existed in many Southern Colonies. The tree in Charleston, SC was chopped down by the British, so the colonists made a cane from the roots and presented it to Thomas Jefferson. There were 2 Declarations of Independence before the one in Philadelphia. Both Halifax, NC and Mecklenburg/Charlotte, NC had Declarations of Independence against Britain. The dates still exist on the North Carolina flag.

Posted by jim on March 10,2010 | 08:10 AM

To the readers who enjoyed this article and want more about the revolution,I would like to highly recommend the book and miniseries on DVD titled "John Adams",starring Paul Giammatti and Laura Linney (as John and Abigail Adams);it was wonderful!

Posted by Bill Boehm on February 17,2010 | 03:37 PM

Fascinating. I always like to read things that challenge popular belief. Check out my articles and let me know what you think. Thanks much.

Posted by roguescholar2 on February 16,2010 | 07:44 PM

An interesting article.
But, it starts with the popular misconception that the colonists in Boston who vandalized the cargo ships carrying the tea were protesting the imposition of taxes on tea.
In fact, the problem was that Parliament had removed the taxes on that tea in an effort to make the price amenable to the colonists and protect the profits on the West India Company.
I think that an article on commonly held myths of the Revolution ought to set the record straight. The original Tea Party members were protesting the removal of taxes, not the imposition thereof.

Posted by Charlie Jensen on February 10,2010 | 11:48 PM

Very well written but I agree with the comments of "Nun" that this is a straw-man argument.

For example, not only is the statement "The term “spirit of ‘76” refers to the colonists’ patriotic zeal and has always seemed synonymous with the idea that every able-bodied male colonist resolutely served..." false but hard for a rational man to believe.

As a matter of fact we were taught just the opposite! We were taught that the population was deeply divided on loyalty to England! Many of our founding fathers argued AGAINST cessation. That makes it hard to accept that we were taught that our people all fought and suffered united against the king.

Posted by david on February 6,2010 | 10:54 AM

Wow I didn't realize the Brits knew exactly what they where getting into. Must be since they won. Georege Soros save the Queen.

Posted by wolfpriest on February 6,2010 | 09:16 AM

I found the article interesting and the posted comments very thought provoking. I agree that the term "myth" may have been a stretch but the ideas and information certainly made me reflect on the information provided in American History classrooms across America. I will admit though that the only real disturbing bit was one of comments posted about Kings Mountain. Mark Anthony and William D. Anderson kept their professional bearing as they provided the author with a correction. Another comment posted by James C. Ryan reflect the ugliness that exists academia today. Let's certainly discuss our history and investigate differences in sources, facts, and interpretations but let's do it with respect. Yes, the geographic location was incorrect but the article didn't hinge on Kings Mountain. Really, did you need to express yourself so vehemently? An exclamation point after "wrong"? Take a valium next time you get ready to comment, Mr. Ryan, and maybe the readers will see your information and not your disrespectful tone.

Posted by Heidi Bleazey on February 5,2010 | 04:10 PM

We frequently hear about the seizure of Texas and the Southwest by the uS during the period of Manifest Destiny, but little is said of the fact that the Mexican government had spent very little in treasure or physical effort in maintaining their colonial possesions in their Northern areas.

Mexico had invited Americans into Texas to develop what they had been unable to develop, and in California they had done nothing to prevent the abandonment of all but five missions and one estancia, which operated only as businesses by that time. The only symbol of Mexican government in the area of California was a small fleet of reveue cutters operating practically as privateers. The indigenous Mexican populations at the time of American occupation consented, mostly, having little respect for the government in Mexico City.

It could be reasonably said that Mexico lost Texas due ot the corruption in Santa Ana'a army, which left its soldiers unfed and unpaid as it dwindled from a highly orgnanized and cohesive force of 5,000 men to practically nothing. California was close to independence in 1848 due to inattention, and no opposition had maerialized to Fremont's incursion.

Posted by Michael Buckley on February 3,2010 | 02:37 PM

Thank you. An extremely well-written piece. It was a marvelous brush-up on what my superb SC History teacher taught us about the Revolutionary War when I was in 8th grade. I'll even give a bit of credit to my US History teacher in 11th grade but I had already read my US history book from cover-to-cover within three days of receiving it. He just refreshed what I already learned from a well-written book. (The history book he chose for our education was far more entertaining than he was.)

Posted by D C Langelage on February 3,2010 | 08:00 AM

We are just lucky that nobody felt compelled to use nukes.

Posted by Obbop on February 2,2010 | 12:23 PM

I am a history major, but I hate the way history is taught, it makes it out that this country started with the Revolutionary War(which it is sad that revolutionary spirit has left this country), but this country really started with the Trail of Tears. I know technically that is just the occupation of the country and technically it is when the legal documents were written, but it's something we shouldn't forget, this land was not empty when we got here!

Posted by Marilyn on February 2,2010 | 10:50 AM

A good read. But the myths were weak. The point of an article like this is be to debunk/deconstruct standing well accepted but misinterpreted (or just plain untrue) "facts" from the general corpus of mythology that underpins American identity. The talking points here are simply obscure, or far from that corpus of myth that they might only appeal to a specialist (who would have already debunked them for themselves), and as such end up creating a bit of a bait and switch.

Unless the myths debunked are something almost everyone accepts, what is the point of debunking them?

It is an interesting article, but maybe it didn't need the sensationalist focus?

Robert Johnson
University of Munich
American Studies

Posted by Robert Allen Johnson on February 1,2010 | 02:28 AM

"Shades of Avatar!"???

You should learn more about your history.

America has lied to the native peoples of these lands for generations, has starved them, poisoned them, intentionally spread disease among them, massacred them and broken almost every treat, agreement and promise they ever made.

An American tradition that goes on today.

Get your head out of your backside and into reality.

Posted by James Howard on February 1,2010 | 01:23 AM

A vision Washington had during the revolutionary war - very moving and powerful - is described at

http://peaceink.org/gwvision.html - along with a speech he gave when he left office - another wonderful piece.

Posted by Craig on February 1,2010 | 01:07 AM

Very interesting, quite well written, wondering if anyone caught the part about "Manhatten Island"? Ladies and Gentleman, say hello to "Staten Island"! Unless Mr. Ferling wasn't specific enough, or omission from the publisher's due to space limitations. I'm wondering if there's a point in time when All detailed facts are presented before I leave this earth? Makes me wonder about the same thing about Abraham Lincoln and John Fitzgerald Kenndy? Very educational. I liked it myself.

Posted by John Barrett. on February 1,2010 | 01:01 AM

We're in the same position the colonials were in 300-some years ago, in that they were revolting against England, but more specifically they were revolting against the taxes imposed by the *bank* of England, and since the Federal Reserve was snuck into law in 1913, we're in the same situation. Which is why we are forced to pay property taxes, wage taxes.

Bankers own the US government.

Posted by Phil E. Drifter on February 1,2010 | 11:31 PM

Everyone here needs to remember that our history is important and needs to be taught to future generations. I found this very informative and hope that those in the future do not choose to edit this out of the history books.

Posted by CMS on February 1,2010 | 11:02 PM

Really? How could an article of such length mention the year 1775, April, and never mention 10 Novemeber 1775? This is when my Marine Corps came alive. Thankfully, we are a good natured bunch of leathernecked animals and just may forgive this blatant omission. Really...guess you just forgot? Must be an Army historian. Really.

Posted by B.L.K. on February 1,2010 | 10:27 PM

In regards to the comment about the Civil War, yes the war was about slavery. Southern states left the Union in the name of "States Rights" and the right for southerners to chose their way of life. And the South's way of life was an economy based entirely on slave labor and the right to own slaves period. You can dress it up anyway you want, it doesn't change the facts.

Posted by Vicki Johnson on February 1,2010 | 09:53 PM

I found this very interesting. May I suggest the History channels series on the American Revolution. Very well made. I learned more about the subject the they taught in school

Posted by helen on February 1,2010 | 09:48 PM

Notable in it's absense from this pretty good list of myths is the role of Corporations in oppressing the Colonists. It was in fact Corporate Inventory which was deposited in Boston harbor during the so- called "tea party".
The British East India Tea Company had been chartered by the King of England to enforce the Crown's economic domination of America. The "Red Coats" were merely the muscle backing up the Corporation. It was a 'mechanical arm', if you will by which the King extended his hegemony.
For this reason, the Early government here essentially outlawed Corporations as a business entiy. Very few Corporate Charters were issued by the Federal or State Gov'ts for most of the first 100 years of our history. Then in 1876, the Supreme Court granted Corporations "legal personhood" and the set about doing exactly what the Founders had been afraid they would. Dominate politics with their Treasuries.
How little we learned.

Posted by Patriot on February 1,2010 | 05:39 PM

Now I'm eleven years old, and they never taught us these things when we were studying the American Revolution. This is an interesting article for all of us.

Britain was right to have it's doubts if they could win a war with Americans! Sure, they have well armed soldiers. But what did the Americans have? Determination. They wanted to be free of the British. I'm glad the Americans decided to fight fore freedom. If they hadn't, where would we be now? I would hate to see myself.

Posted by Sarah Anderson on February 1,2010 | 04:40 PM

The publishers might consider the so-called Civil War and its myths. Examples; was it fought over slavery (of course not) or what Lincoln really fought for (money) or the Emancipation Proclamation (it freed no slaves) and perhaps the very name of the war itself (it was not a civil war). SI writers could easily add another dozen or so myths about that tragic event in our nation's history which most of our school children are still being distaught, perhaps even adding why they are so misled - a topic in itself with modern day bearing. Such an article would be timely. The CW's sesquicentennial is already upon us (1860-2010).

Posted by Bob Arnold on January 23,2010 | 01:43 PM

John Ferling’s discussion of George Washington’s ability as a military strategist in the January issue of the Smithsonian magazine omits one of the General’s finest moments – the Battle of Stony Point, planned by him and carried out by General Anthony Wayne.

Fought in New York’s lower Hudson River Valley on July 16, 1779, it was the last major battle in the North and one of the few nighttime assaults of the Revolutionary War. Two columns of Light Infantry, armed with unloaded muskets and fixed bayonets, swept around the sides of the rocky peninsula while a diversion was created in the front. Within less than half an hour, the British garrison was captured, along with fifteen cannon.

The battle had important consequences. Of only eleven medals issued for the entire eight-year war, Congress awarded three for bravery at Stony Point, and by December, Sir Henry Clinton, frustrated by his failed attempts to control the Hudson River, launched an attack against Charleston, South Carolina, shifting the focus of the war to the American south, eventually culminating in Cornwallis’s surrender in October, 1781. For that reason, the Battle of Stony Point could well be added to the list of ‘turning points’ Ferling mentions in his article – in addition to providing evidence of Washington’s strategic ability.

Don Loprieno
Bristol, ME

former site manager
Stony Point Battlefield State Historic Site
Stony Point, New York
and author of The Enterprise In Contemplation:
The Midnight Assault of Stony Point

Posted by don Loprieno on January 19,2010 | 06:44 PM

Let me suggest that the biggest Myth of the American Revolution is that the Spanish forces were not involved. Ferling's complete lack of Spanish inclusion is shocking.

Proclamations by our President during Hispanic Heritage Months acknowledge what historian John Ferling could not even whisper.

"Hispanics have served with honor and distinction in every conflict since the Revolutionary War, and they have made invaluable contributions through their service to our country." Pres. Barak Obama Oct 15, 2009

"These proud patriots have fought in every war since our founding, and many have earned the Medal of Honor for their courage." Pres. George Bush, Sept 12, 2008

"Hispanic Americans have sacrificed in defense of this Nation's freedom, serving in every major American conflict." George W. Bush, Sept 17, 2003

"The Continental Army benefited from the valor of Bernardo de Galvez, who led his frequently outnumbered troops to numerous victories against the British." George W. Bush, Sept 28, 2001

If Ferling wondered how the South was not lost to the British, he should look at how the Spanish drove the British out of the Gulf of Mexico, blocking their access to New Orleans and the Mississippi River. Under Spanish General Bernardo Galvez, the Spanish forces captured the British fort of St. Joseph in present-day Niles, Michigan. Then they took Mobile and Pensacola, the capital of the British colony of West Florida. That was why the South was not lost to the British.

I certainly believe that you owe your readers the opportunity of broadening their historical knowledge to include what our Presidents acknowledge, the Spanish were integral to the success of the American Revolution.

Posted by Mimi Lozano on January 16,2010 | 12:25 AM

Dear Sirs/Mmes: Reference your Myths of the American Revolution article by John Ferling, Jan 2010.

The story of our Spanish Mexican ancestors in the U.S. is no less impressive than that of the first English colonists that children are taught to admire from a very young age. Yet, it has been left out of the history books. It is unfortunate when “New Spain” in the U.S. is over twice as large as “New England”.

Bob Thonhoff in his book, “The Texas Connection with the American Revolution” writes: “Viewed from a Texas perspective, the American Revolution takes on a new dimension. A product of recent historical research, the Texas connection figures into the larger role that Spain played in the winning of American independence.”
In reality, the long-standing Anglo American anxiety and distrust of Spanish Mexican U.S. citizens today can be traced to their lack of facts. In truth, Spain and New Spain extended hands of friendship to Anglos from the beginning. An example is Bernardo de Galvez’ support of the thirteen colonies. He is the forgotten Lafayette.
Mr. Thonhoff describes it thusly: “More significantly to us (the U.S.), they (Spain and New Spain) aided the American colonists immeasurably in the war effort, both by providing arms, ammunition, and supplies by way of the Mississippi River and by diverting British manpower that could have been used against the Continental Army.” After the war, England attributed their loss of its colonies in America to Spain’s and New Spain’s bulwark of support to the Anglo Americans. Yet, it seems that these events have deliberately been left out of history books.

We ask for your support in getting the Spanish Mexican story recognized for what it is – an integral part of U.S. history. Thank you.

José Antonio López (www.tejanosunidos.org)

Posted by Jose Antonio Lopez on January 15,2010 | 11:41 AM

Waiting 2 hours to respond to flanking maneuver?
I'm guessing that could be explained as trying to verify the field reports to be sure they weren't being duped.

Failing to comprehend the gravity of the conflict in the south? That's kind of hard to believe, or maybe just overly simplistic?

Posted by on January 13,2010 | 12:25 PM

One thing that seems contradictory about this article and two books I read about Washington about three years ago seems to be the role of Blacks in the Revolution. One book asserted that Washington worked to get the Blacks out of the Army when he arrived at Boston. This book claims that Washington did not desire Blacks as soldiers and feared they would undermine support for the Revolution. The other said much the opposite and claimed that the number of Black soldiers increased as slaves were enlisted as substitutes (and to keep them from being freed by the British).

This author seems to follow the second category.

How can historians come to such conflicting statements?

Is it any wonder there are "myths" about everything? "Give 'em Hell, Harry," left the White House as the most unpopular president up to that time. He was basically told not to run for an, complete term. Today his scandals and corruption are forgotten and he is a folk hero.

All this is discouraging to learning the lessons of the past.

Posted by Amy Delacroix on January 12,2010 | 05:39 PM

Too bad the Republic didn't last long enough to determine whether the War for Independence was worth the bloodshed. Thank Dishonest Abe for that.

Posted by Herman King on January 12,2010 | 11:40 AM

the biggest myth is not dealt with and in light of present day problems whitewashing of american history appears to continue.

the boston tea party was not a protest against taxation but a protest by local tea merchants against the tea market being opened up to other traders.

ordinary americans suffering for the rights of elites to abuse them. plus ca change

Posted by b green on January 12,2010 | 09:12 AM

Somebody suggested Miles Chilton) this article as suitable for 3rd or 4th grade readers. Clearly, his state must have superior education standards. Most grade 7's in the real world would have difficulty reading more than a few sentences of this article

Posted by mike newcombe on January 11,2010 | 02:31 AM

A thoroughly enjoyable piece on the American Revolution...

However, I understood General Howe's results were somewhat different than what this essay depicts.

A number of years ago I had read a piece by another historian whose name I cannot remember, that put Howe in a better position than this article describes.

Yes, he was cautious but as I understand it he was not interested in causing bloodshed but more interested in gaining ground through the use of the "indirect approach".

Accordingly, Howe was quite successful and basically had cornered the American Army in the south and wrapped up the end-game of the entire conflict. At this moment Howe was replaced by Lord Cornwallis, who though a fine European commander, did not understand the small-unit fighting tactics of the American colonies and subsequently undid everything Howe had accomplished...

Posted by Steve Naidamast on January 11,2010 | 05:16 PM

Sam Abrams should be more polite but he's basically right. From the British POV this war was indeed unwinnable because it could never be won by military means. The outcome of battles could only affect the form and timing of independence, not change the fact.

As pointed out by "unpatriotic" British critics at the time, the only way in the long term of holding the First British Empire together was to ensure that its members WANTED it to hold together. Coercion just played into the seperatist's hands.

By the time of Yorktown even a crushing victory could only have delayed American independence, and would thus have done even more damage to British finances. Late in the war even the British government understood this, but they saw no exit srategy and so kept muttering nonsense about "loss of prestige", "not letting the sacrifice of our soldiers be in vain", "protecting local allies" etc while blood and treasure were wasted.

Posted by derrida derider on January 10,2010 | 01:48 AM

Well written and researched, but I'm curious, what myths about our time will they be regurgitating 250 years hence?

Posted by kenneth polit on January 10,2010 | 08:55 PM

To me, this is a bit of a straw-man argument.

The only potential "myth" listed is the one about Saratoga. None of the other so-called "myths" were taught to me in the first place. I'm not sure where the author is coming from.

Posted by Nun on January 10,2010 | 02:07 PM

You would do better with a piece Myths of the Civil War, a far better established mythology with American historians. Among other issues, I suggest exploring whether Lincoln (although an excellent politician and wordsmith) should be given such high marks his failure to make more of an effort to head off the War, to retain the important Virginina, North Carolina and border states in the Union (as opposed to the far less important, hot-head South Carolina and gulf states), and whether the strategies of Lincoln and Grant (and Lee for that matter) bringing about the slaughter of 700,000 young men who were cousins and friends were wise and worthy of praise rather than condemnation.

Posted by Dan Grossman on January 10,2010 | 10:29 AM

History is embellished--that's obvious. Our first leaders were not perfect--not even looking to be leaders until the situations arose, stimulating a change of direction in our America. It matters not whether Washington chopped down a cherry tree......or that there were multiple "Paul Revere" types....or incompetence on the battlefield. It is sad that historians seem to have proven that they themselves are at fault for providing us with tweaked "facts". Or maybe myths are just part of who we are, have been or will be.

Posted by Catherine Katrovitz on January 9,2010 | 11:42 AM

It is often thougt tt there were only 13 olonies to revolt. Ihink that there were 14, Nova Scotia waa long established colony. It was more or less asked to join but refused. They might of taken into consideration that the British Navy was based there. FGD

Posted by F Gordon Dunn M.D on January 7,2010 | 08:42 PM

Have enjoyed the January 2010 edition of the Smithsonian. In John Ferling’s very interesting article Myths of the American Revolution I found what might be called an unrecognized myth. On both p. 52 & p. 53 I read that the Battle of Kings Mountain was fought in North Carolina. It was, in fact, fought in South Carolina as can be readily verified by consulting Chapter Eleven, The American Revolution, in Walter Edgar’s SOUTH CAROLINA—A HISTORY (1998 . University of South Carolina Press).

What contributes to the confusion, no doubt, is that the nearby City of Kings Mountain is in North Carolina. I have visited Kings Mountain National Military Park (the site of the battle), and can assure that it is in South Carolina—near the Town of Blacksburg.

Posted by William D. Anderson, Jr. on January 7,2010 | 04:06 PM

NATHANAEL GREENE by G M Carbone portrays a detailed account of how the war was won in the South through Greene's shrewd defeat of Cornwallis. This set up the final blow at Yorktown. The French fleet kept the British from entering Chesapeake Bay to support Cornwallis. Charlestowne was renamed Charleston by Greene when he recaptured it.

Posted by Lawrence Levine on January 7,2010 | 01:54 PM

My ancestors fought at the Battle of Oriskany in New York State. As a result of their involvement in the American Revolution, the United States ( or what would become the USA) won, but the family had to sell off some of their family's farmland in order to survive during that time. Everyone paid a personal price during that war for independence.

Posted by Janie Glauber on January 7,2010 | 01:12 PM

The surrender of Cornwallis is made more interesting and complete when it is realized that Admiral Rodney could have been there with 15 men of war and 4000 soldiers if he hadn't stopped at St. Eustatius to close down the source of arms to the Americans and stayed too long while collecting and loading the prize he claimed.

Posted by roger hanlon on January 7,2010 | 12:43 PM

This is an idiotic article. Eg, everybody knows there were significant force of Tories fighting for the king....and GW did win the war....he did the most important part of an insurgent generals job, keeping his army together and in the field. in this kind of insurgency (America, Nam), the imperial power, at the end of a long supply line, has to win on the field to win the war while the insurgents just have to not lose to win the war. which is what happened in both cases.

Remember: the object of war, as defined at all war colleges, is psychological - to break the will of the enemy to continue to fight. To maintain the insurgency and draw support form great powers who are the enemies of your enemies.
He did it. John Adams, who was an extremely critical guy, no tendency to flatter at all, credited GW...and 2nd after him Paine...

Distinguished historian or not this attack on GW is just ill-informed. And his supposed widely accepted myths are accepted only by the dismally ignorant.

Posted by Sam Abrams on January 2,2010 | 05:04 PM

A good article. Probably the best book I have ever read on the Revoulionary War is Benson Bobrick's book, Angel in the Whirlwind: The Triumph of the American Revolution. I make this judgement based not on my own thoughts about the book but the fact that everyone to whom I have recommended (or given it as a gift) this book over the past 12 years has said they found it very good. Just a quick ironic note, Washington's view of the militia is interestng when one realizes that he was a member of the militia during the French and Indian War and that as a commander in that war was defeated at Fort Necessity in PA. Get the book, force yourself to read the first chapter; you'll be glad you did.

Posted by Burt Floraday on January 2,2010 | 10:00 AM

I've read fairly extensively in Revolutionary War literature and history, owning many books including a 20 volume or so set and many individual books, plus reading on the internet. While this article is informative, I didn't recognize much in the Myths that are then disputed or disproved to establish in my mind the idea that these myths have any really great currency or standing. Perhaps, in part, this is a tactic to get a broader readership which I suppose the piece deserves. That being said, I think there are some myths that have modern legs that could be disspelled or disproved and that would make the piece stronger. For examples, one need only peruse snopes.com for spam email disinformation, for example. Another myth, or rather something only partially true, that is commonly repeated is that only land-owning males could vote during or in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution. This is not true, it varied considerably from state to state. When Vermont came in soon after, it featured universal male suffrage without any property requirement, and the original colonies varied as well. See A. Keyssar, "The Right to Vote"

Posted by P. R. Finn on January 1,2010 | 11:23 PM

The article offers a brief overview regarding some opinions on this period I had not considered in the past. I would offer it to a younger group of American history buffs,(3rd or 4th grade) with the hopes it might stimulate further research. Content was well arranged.

Posted by Miles Chilton on January 1,2010 | 04:06 PM

Oh to live in a country that pointed to a robust history of innovation, human invention, and contribution to the human condition as their greatest historical legacy instead of celebrating, debating, memorializing, chronicling and analyzing repeated wars !

Posted by Mack J on January 1,2010 | 09:29 AM

"The Americans had neither a standing army nor a navy " -- ah yes, but Dark They Were and Golden-Eyed. As Jung declared a centry later, they were Indians in their souls. Shades of Avatar!

Posted by anne Simon on January 1,2010 | 08:34 AM

Very well written except for the error in stating that the Battle of Kings Mountain occured in North Carolina. This battle in fact was in South Carolina though fought primarily by militia units from Virginia and North Carolina.

Posted by Mark Anthony on December 31,2009 | 03:56 PM

I enjoyed the article, but spotted a small geographic error that hit a sore point for a South Carolina history teacher. The Battle of Kings Mountain was fought York County, South Carolina.

Posted by Jim Wilke on December 30,2009 | 10:59 PM

John Ferling obviously is a learned historian, but he just as obviously needs to brush up on his American Revolution geography. Mr. Ferling twice locates the 1780 battle at Kings Mountain in North Carolina. Wrong! The battle took place at what today is Kings Mountain National Military Park, which definitely is in South Carolina. Perhaps Mr. Ferling (and Smithsonian's fact checkers) confused the battle site with the nearby community of Kings Mountain, which IS in North Carolina.

Posted by James C. Ryan on December 30,2009 | 01:52 PM

The war was a draw, the rebels contended for power & dominion over all of north America & didint get it.

Posted by anthony mccabe on December 29,2009 | 05:20 PM

Liked the article. The illistrations are appropriate for a children's primer (maybe) - real portraits would have made better points.

Posted by Shir-El on December 21,2009 | 09:41 AM

This is actually a very well written piece.

Very informative and it raises a lot of points that aren't traditionally mentioned/taught at schools.

Posted by acuvue oasys on December 18,2009 | 08:59 PM

In The Magazine

May 2013

View Table of Contents »

Travel with Smithsonian

Smithsonian Store

View full archiveRecent Issues

About Us

Smithsonian.com expands on Smithsonian magazine's in-depth coverage of history, science, nature, the arts, travel, world culture and technology. Join us regularly as we take a dynamic and interactive approach to exploring modern and historic perspectives on the arts, sciences, nature, world culture and travel, including videos, blogs and a reader forum.

Smithsonian.com

Myths of the American Revolution

A noted historian debunks the conventional wisdom about America's War of Independence

Add New Comment

Comments (75)

Most Popular

View All Most Popular »