<p>I agree. Even back in the dark ages of my elementary school career I was taught that the cherry tree episode and Washington’s wooden teeth were myths, the mob at the Boston Massacre were throwing ice balls and rocks, and that Longfellow took a great deal of creative liberty with the Lexington/Concord story.</p>
<p>Are people seriously debating whether Patrick Henry said “give me liberty, or give me death!” and “if this be treason, make the most of it”, or indeed any of the famous quotes attributed to him? He did not say any of them. There is no record he said it, therefore he did not say it. </p>
<p>In fact there is a surviving eye witness account of what happened and what was said, a Frenchman was present and his notes were found in 1921 in a Hydrological Institute in Paris. It proves Henry said no such thing. Henry did have a little outburst in which he insulted the British king, but he later apologised and declared his “undying loyalty to the king” - hardly a proud republican.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no idea, I’ve never heard it discussed. My guess it that it was the culmination in a not very extraordinary set of events. History has given the American Revolution more weight and importance than I think it deserves, it has certainly embellished the reasons behind it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If history has distorted the Bill of Right’s original purpose, so to can it distort the events of the Revolution. That was my point.</p>
<p>American history is not even 300 years old. Just imagine how messed up English history must be!</p>
<p>Dionysus58, I also have to note that Bill Bryson’s “Made in America” is not exactly a scholarly work about the American Revolution–as much as I like Bryson.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Really? The Queen disagrees with you. She places a great deal of importance on the American Revolution, both for the US and for the UK. These are part of her remarks on the event of the US bicentennial:</p>
<p>"It seems to me that Independence Day, the Fourth of July, should be celebrated as much in Britain as in America. Not in rejoicing at the separation of the American Colonies from the British Crown but in sincere gratitude to the Founding Fathers of this great Republic for having taught Britain a very valuable lesson.</p>
<p>We lost the American colonies because we lacked that statesmanship “to know the right time, and the manner of yielding, what is impossible to keep.”</p>
<p>But the lesson was learned. In the next century and a half we kept more closely to the principles of Magna Carta which have been the common heritage of both our countries.</p>
<p>We learned to respect the right of others to govern themselves in their own ways. This was the outcome of experience learned the hard way in 1776. Without that great act in the cause of liberty performed in Independence Hall two hundred years ago, we could never have transformed an Empire into a Commonwealth!"</p>
<p><a href=“http://oldlife.org/2011/07/the-queens-speech/[/url]”>http://oldlife.org/2011/07/the-queens-speech/</a></p>
<p>“In fact there is a surviving eye witness account of what happened and what was said, a Frenchman was present and his notes were found in 1921 in a Hydrological Institute in Paris. It proves Henry said no such thing.”</p>
<p>I stand corrected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually that was a terribly boring book, but from what I can remember (I checked his sources a few years ago), most of what he said about the American Revolution was true. I don’t recall if the Frenchman’s name is given in Bryson’s book, but I am pretty sure the same account was published by the American Historical Review.</p>
<p>Dionysus58, you mention that a Frenchman was present at Patrick Henry’s speech and that his notes were found later. Which of Henry’s speeches was this?</p>
<p>Also, it seems really odd to contend: “There is no record he said it, therefore he did not say it.” There is no record of at least 80% of the things I said in the course of teaching last semester, but I did in fact say them!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I submit that, even looking from outside America, this contention is untenable.</p>
<p>For one, the American Revolution was clearly an inspiration for the whole wave of colonial revolts in the New World, resulting in a large-scale European retreat from colonialism in the Americas during the first decades of the 19th century. In the span of just 40 years following the Treaty of Paris, virtually every major European colony in the Americas had successfully won its independence, most of them by forcibly ejecting their mother country. Essentially the only exception is Canada.</p>
<p>I believe it was an account of one of the debates on the Stamp Act in the House of Burgesses.</p>
<p>If there is no evidence a historical figure said something, we must assume they did not say it. Otherwise anybody could claim that anyone said anything they liked.</p>
<p>Not to mention what ironically ended up taking place in a Western European country in 1789.</p>
<p>Especially considering she supported the US Revolution and that support was one of the factors causing the financial crisis which brought about the downfall of her monarchy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, we have a “fact” in that a supposedly “frenchman” wrote an anonymous manuscript called the "Journal of a French Traveller in the Colonies, 1765, and did not mention the words most observers have deemed genuine. </p>
<p>Isn’t it interesting that the gentleman --an obvious spy for France-- decided to write his account in English despite that his readers would be French? Isn’t it interesting that the manuspcript shares tales of many meetings with influential people but no corroborating accounts of the this spying French saw daylights. </p>
<p>Regardless of the identity of this European, be it French or Scottish (as in Charles Murray) elevating this manuscript’s unveiling as a evidence seems farfetched.</p>
<p>Also, unlike many latter day monarchs, the Georgian Kings weren’t always the most level-headed rulers as American Colonists and British subjects found:</p>
<p>[HORRIBLE</a> HISTORIES - The 4 Georges: ‘Born 2 Rule’ - YouTube](<a href=“HORRIBLE HISTORIES - The 4 Georges: 'Born 2 Rule' - YouTube”>HORRIBLE HISTORIES - The 4 Georges: 'Born 2 Rule' - YouTube) *</p>
<ul>
<li>Yes, I know that George III was actually the grandson of George II, not the son. However, the video does illustrate how “out there” British monarchs were before and after the American Revolution.</li>
</ul>
<p>The American Revolution was more a rejection of George III than Britain, I thought that much was obvious to everyone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, thanks to George III taking a much more direct role in the affairs of state with the aid of toadies like Lord North, there wasn’t too much perceptible difference between the two to colonists angered by what they perceived as meddlesome and oppressive acts from a distant imperious government. </p>
<p>Even if he didn’t directly support the taxation and other oppressive acts…his favored ministers like Lord North did.</p>
<p>If there is no evidence a historical figure said something, we must assume they did not say it. Otherwise anybody could claim that anyone said anything they liked</p>
<p>No, historians then look at context, collateral writings, outcomes that may (or may not) be traced to the sentiments a supposed quote evokes, etc. It becomes a “piecing together.” Clearly, Henry said something. Or, someone did. Or someone interpreted something to mean that. Focusing on the exact words often risks missing the point and significance. And, I think you are missing the role lore and legend play in all lessons. </p>
<p>300 years is a long time, but that era is, I’d say, still active in the collective memory- each time we protest, seek to defend certain rights, etc. </p>
<p>And, anybody DOES claim that anyone said anything they liked. We see it constantly, in the media, regarding public issues.</p>
<p>Rose Garden and acts of terror comes to mind.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure that what you think is much more accurate and unbiased than the current historical consensus.</p>
<p>OP, what is your dog in this fight anyway? Are you hoping to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the existence of the United States? Good luck with that.</p>
<p>If the account of the Frenchman covered a speech by Patrick Henry in the House of Burgesses, then I am not surprised that there is no evidence in his account that Henry said “Give me liberty or give me death.”</p>
<p>I had always heard that this particular speech was given in St. John’s Church, in Richmond, Virginia.</p>
<p>I recall a history professor telling us that George III was actually rather well-liked by his subjects, as he was the first in his line (Hanover) to learn English and speak it at court. Big Papa George I and Papa George II were Germans, through and through and weren’t particularly happy “Britons.”</p>
<p>Getting back to the complaints of the colonists, they tried pretty darn hard to reach an economic accomodation with the British and as another poster said, tby and large they considered themselves to BE BRITISH. Theirs an obscure letter penned by Jefferson years before the war. It’s an appeal to the crown wherein he describes himself and his countrymen as “British North Americans” and fully a [equal] part of the British Empire.</p>