<p>Although hardly an expert in American History,I’ve found this topic interesting. It reminds me of the author James Loewen, who has made a career of debunking “facts” taught in history books, especially in the book “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong (1995)”. It’s an engrossing read.</p>
<p>Yep, it’s a fascinating book. He has a great followup, called “Lies Across America,” which documents false/misleading/one-sided roadside historical markers and other historical attractions.</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>And it was in front of the Virginia Convention (I believe Second), since the House of Burgesses had been dissolved the year before by the governor. So if his account claims to be at a meeting of the Burgesses…</p>
<p>Washington did precisely what he needed to do to win the war: maintain his army intact, inflict maximum possible casualties on the occupying force and make the situation untenable for the occupying nation such that peace and withdrawal is preferable to continued stalemate.</p>
<p>Make no bones about it, Yorktown was a disaster for the British but they could have easily raised another army, landed another force somewhere else and resumed the fight. But the British people wouldn’t stand for it.</p>
<p>Same thing happened in Vietnam. The Viet Cong/NVA never needed to defeat the American occupying force in a straight fight - just make it a costly, bloody affair for the occupier and they’ll probably give up at some point. And so we did.</p>
<p>Yes, history is written by the victorious. Yet there is revisionist history. Both have “truth”.</p>
<p>Re: history as taught by American teachers…We were in London in a taxi. It was a Bank Holiday. Our driver was listening to a soccer match. In America it was Memorial Day. So daughter (in college) said, “Oh, since England is celebrating Memorial Day…do they also celebrate July 4th?”</p>
<p>The cabbie looked in the rear view mirror and turned down the radio. I looked at my daughter and said, “Sweetheart, we celebrate July 4th…We won the war…against England…no, England doesn’t celebrate that loss.” Brain f***. </p>
<p>The cabbie just shook his head. Thank God she’s beautiful. (And please don’t become all pc on me…this has become a running joke and we all laugh about it now."</p>
<p>Same thing happened 2000 years earlier when the Roman general Quintus Fabius successfully defended Italy against an invasion by the Carthaginians led by Hannibal. Fabius refused to fight the Carthaginians head-on but kept harrying them and then retreating, slowly wearing them down. The impatient Roman public demanded Fabius be fired and a more conventionally aggressive general be put in charge. They gave Fabius the nickname “cunctaor” (“The Delayer”) as an insult. But after all the direct attacks by other roman generals failed miserably and Fabius’s strategy proved successful, the nickname became a title of honor instead. </p>
<p>This is now recognized as a formal military strategy called the “Fabian Strategy,” and there is some thought that Washington knew of Fabius and deliberately copied his strategy.</p>
<p>I don’t have any ulterior motive if that’s what you mean, I have no problem with the US and I certainly have no wish to cast doubt on it’s legitimacy; I just thought it was interesting how ‘facts’ which are so often quoted in schools, colleges and even the American media are not quite true. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s news to me. I’ve never heard that before. Is there any evidence to support that claim or is it another myth?</p>
<p>I will have to leave that question (#111) to the real historians on the forum. American high school textbooks almost never come with footnotes, citing the original sources. (Mine didn’t.) Probably there are some genuine historians on this forum.</p>
<p>To return to an earlier point, though, if you took the “information” conveyed in SAT essays as an indication of what Americans know, you would conclude that the entire country had been hit by epidemic stupidity–with a few exceptions, of course. I think it’s in the nature of the SAT Writing prompts. </p>
<p>In contrast, if you read the essays that are occasionally posted in connection with Advanced Placement U.S. History, those tend to be pretty good. I think the difference is connected with the construction of the questions in the latter case. They tend to elicit well-reasoned, factual responses. </p>
<p>If you take a look at the difference between the prompts, I think you will see what I mean. Also, in connection with the essays for the SAT writing test, students are permitted to use examples from literature to “prove” arguments that they are trying to make. I suppose I shouldn’t object to this, since they can also make up facts in support of their arguments, without deductions.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I believe that there is an extant text of a speech given by Patrick Henry in the House of Burgesses, on the subject of sheep and wool.</p>
<p>Neither of those links represent proof. Obviously the church in question is going to say that Henry said it there, no doubt it is how they make their money. "Henry’s words were not transcribed, but no one who heard them forgot their eloquence, or Henry’s closing words: “Give me liberty, or give me death!” – that is a lie, nobody present ever mentioned Henry saying that, no letter or diary entry gives any hint he said anything of the kind. Where’s your proof he said it?</p>
<p>It wouldn’t change anything. It certainly wouldn’t change the outcome of the war. Whatever he said, all witnesses agree that the listeners were fired-up by Henry’s fiercely anti-British speech. Which is why the OP’s initial complaint and dogged pursuit of this distinction without a difference are rather pedantic and petty.</p>