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: ruclips.net/video/5B8vgdS8ikU/видео.html • 4:45 2nd great awakening: ruclips.net/video/0AwHLRqX3Qk/видео.html • 9:07 England vs. France: ruclips.net/video/7HZTEmflKj4/видео.html • 9:07 Britain vs. France: ruclips.net/video/2it5h9e41Xo/видео.html • 13:11 Lost cause myth: ruclips.net/video/5EOhXF5lNgQ/видео.html • 13:41 Nationalism: ruclips.net/video/UGXffvDj_E8/видео.html • 17:40 How revolutionary? ruclips.net/video/LRdmx_Y40yw/видео.html • 19:11 US influence on French Revolution: ruclips.net/video/k6FmJwOJ1rg/видео.html • 24:01 Sectional Crisis lecture: ruclips.net/video/QEnYk2xgEIo/видео.html • 27:54 Neoliberalism: ruclips.net/video/kBp69R_K1a0/видео.html *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
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.
22:22 People are generally claiming, or trying to suggest we should be, a pure democracy. We're not, nor should we be. And the FOunding Fathers knew this. The greeks figured it out 2000 years ago. The Electoral College was developed to try and prevent a demagogue from coming to power.
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.
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 🤦♀️
@@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..
@@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?
@@AlexirLife according to Christophe Darmangeat, there was frequent and large scale conflict among aboriginals. The peaceful hunter gatherer is a myth.
@@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.
The American Declaration of Independence is practically a line for line, word for word translation of the Act of Abjuration of 1581 in which the States General (yes, that is - still - Parliament) of the Netherlands withdrew their adherence to King Philip II. And Jefferson knew enough Dutch (and had access to Dutch speakers) to do it.
When people say slavery is our original sin, they are saying we were birthed amid that. It was here before the US was the US, and it has been our struggle to overcome throughout our history. More broadly, colonial racialism affected the culture and attitude of the US with all non-white populations. I don't think it is extreme to say racism has been our nation's great struggle throughout its history.
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.
@@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.
@@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?
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.
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?! 😀
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. 😂
@@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.
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 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.
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
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...
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
@@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.
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”.
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.
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.
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
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.
*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
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.
@@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 🤣
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.
@@jordanwutkee2548It gave slaveholding states more power though. It gave them greater representation in the government not less. Did i misinterpret something you said?
@@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.
@@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.
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!
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.
@@JMM33RanMA I subscribe to Atun-Shei’s RUclips 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!
@@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
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
You mean like how the Romans ended the Kingdom and became the Roman Republic by replacing the King with the two Consuls and the Senate and turned it into an Oligarchy?
@@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.
@pascalausensi9592 True, I did condense, but even early on, only the wealthy elite had power or the right to vote. Over centuries, the Plebians gained more rights and power.
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?
@@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.
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.
The only one of these myths I sort of bought into was the "conservative revolution" one, and I still think the American revolution, for as trailblazing as it was, wasn't nearly as radical and transformative as some of the revolutions it inspired. I guess, as you said, it was a liberal revolution, and that's never really enough. Also, two things I thought I might mention. 1) If anything were to be called America's original sin, I would say white supremacy fits the bill more than anything else. 2) The other people who tend to insist America isn't a democracy are the American diabolists and tankies who want to engage in Russia apologia/"multipolarity" apologia.
Yeah, I think "conservative" is used in different ways on matters like this, similar to the varying usages of "liberal" over the centuries. It's "conservative" insofar as many of the people involved in the revolution wanted a return to something more resembling their self-governing status quo before Parliament began levying the heavier taxes post-Seven Years War, and how life for much of the country didn't see the kind of massive shifts that came with many 20th century revolutions. But the video is absolutely right that the American Revolution's principles were unabashedly liberal.
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 :/
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
do people really think the US is a "Christian Country"?? Did they not learn WHY we came to America in the first place?? Religious freedom has always been a part of the constitution, so idk why people think that Christianity is the national religion or the moral and ethical compass for our laws.
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
My Unitaeian religeou education teacher compaired the bill of rights tovthe ten commandments. we kids were asked what a government could enfotcr with justice . for example murder can be proved with facts , but honoring your parents could not be proved or disproved. My question to you is whyare there tax laws that give established religions huge tax free money to invest in the stock markrt satelites broacasting etc. ?
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. )
washington was neither democrat or republican. Neither party existed as such and he specifically hated the idea of party identity as divisive to the fledgling nation.
That’s mostly a matter of shifting definitions. Policy-wise, he was a Federalist in all but name, and both parties initially liked to portray themselves as “not actually a party, but a group of concerned citizens trying to support the government/defend the constitution” because they tended to define parties as “insidious cabals seeking to destroy the government/constitution”, and anyone actually campaigning for office was considered a dangerous demagogue.
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. ✌️😎
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
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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 💪🏻🇺🇲🙏🏻
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!
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.
As a christian, I do not agree with Christian nationalist title. But I do agree that this country was not founded off of Christianity. Nor do I believe that the founding fathers were Christians.
"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.
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?
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
It makes me laugh when I see Americans ranting about how they don't want a national health service because they don't want to pay for other people's medical bills having seemingly forgotten how their existing insurance works! Well, I say it makes me laugh... it's not funny, it's tragic really but I've learned over time to care less about such things and just embrace the absurdity of it all.
@@OneOfThoseTypes Unfortunately US politics is big news here in the UK. It dominates the internet but even before that our media has been massively focused on US affairs. Also there are US companies trying to get hold of the NHS and they have for many years been doing their best to influence policy makers and political parties. It might be news to you but the rest of the world views the US healthcare system is an atrocity.
@@OneOfThoseTypes Who is this 'we' you are talking about? YOU might not think of anything other than yourself but your country's government, corporations and military like to interfere all over the world using your tax money. You should probably pay a bit more attention!
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.
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!
0:02 If we're debunking myths can we start out with how insanely stupid a way that is to stand in a rowing boat? Both Washington and the guy with the flag are almost certainly going to fall overboard.Given that they are probably wearing wool and the water is obviously close to freezing then that's the end for them right there. In the background there's a guy mounted on a horse in a rowing boat whilst the horse next to him rears up in fear. They also are going to fall overboard and die. It's actually a miracle you won the war of independence if everyone is going to be that catastrophically idiotic. Also, how long did they have to hold these dangerous poses before the painting was completed?
Are those all common things many Americans think about their revolution? I only have the European history class perspective, and I knew many of those myths weren’t true. A „conservative revolution“ is an oxymoron in itself.
Like most wars the revolution was a resource war hence the principal cause was land. It's no coincidence that the leaders were from the landed class, those that stood most to gain.
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.
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.
22:09 Didn't these voting requirements vary from state to state? Like New Jersey allowed women, Georgia allowed non-landowners, and some states allowed free black people to vote
“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
America is more like that Star Trek: TNG episode "Darmok" with our mythological telling of events. "Washinton on the Delaware. His arms closed, his eyes red."
I've been telling people this since my Civics teacher taught me all of this...in 7th grade. This period we are living in history makes me unironically want to unalive myself; the idea that people can spout Orwellian phrases at people trying to preserve democracy while claiming they are the real saviors because they are Christian and for no other reason, which is like TCH said...the most unpatriotic and unAmerican thing you can believe and do.
I’m a little glad I always felt left out of the American Mythos. When I picture living in the revolutionary war times, I picture myself making butter, staring out a window, thinking “oh good and righteous lord, all the people around me verily suck. All of them sucketh a big one, oh lord.” A lot of people picture themselves living there now a plantation, or as a statesman. They don’t picture life without toilet paper but with smallpox.
Representation in the US is also not equal. The citizens of small states have much more representation for their interests than do the citizens of large states.
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: ruclips.net/video/5B8vgdS8ikU/видео.html
• 4:45 2nd great awakening: ruclips.net/video/0AwHLRqX3Qk/видео.html
• 9:07 England vs. France: ruclips.net/video/7HZTEmflKj4/видео.html
• 9:07 Britain vs. France: ruclips.net/video/2it5h9e41Xo/видео.html
• 13:11 Lost cause myth: ruclips.net/video/5EOhXF5lNgQ/видео.html
• 13:41 Nationalism: ruclips.net/video/UGXffvDj_E8/видео.html
• 17:40 How revolutionary? ruclips.net/video/LRdmx_Y40yw/видео.html
• 19:11 US influence on French Revolution: ruclips.net/video/k6FmJwOJ1rg/видео.html
• 24:01 Sectional Crisis lecture: ruclips.net/video/QEnYk2xgEIo/видео.html
• 27:54 Neoliberalism: ruclips.net/video/kBp69R_K1a0/видео.html
*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
AMERICANS need to watch this the most
It was very kind and considerate of Boston to make tea for the fishes. Britain just wanted it all for themselves!
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.
There were 27 amendments and not 26. The 18th still counts as a change even if repealed
22:22 People are generally claiming, or trying to suggest we should be, a pure democracy. We're not, nor should we be. And the FOunding Fathers knew this. The greeks figured it out 2000 years ago. The Electoral College was developed to try and prevent a demagogue from coming to power.
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.
absolutely
Yeah… Yeah!!!! That works a lot better than a pledge
It could even be sung, like here: ruclips.net/video/OqvLi7qZ_yU/видео.html
Absolutely. Unfortunately it won't happen anytime soon because "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union" sounds too s0ciALiSt
Love that idea. The Preamble is definitely makes more sense as a choice.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that some will be a bit triggered by this video.
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 🤦♀️
@@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..
@@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?
@@AlexirLife according to Christophe Darmangeat, there was frequent and large scale conflict among aboriginals. The peaceful hunter gatherer is a myth.
@@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.
@@adsri2755 check out the work of Bruce Pascoe. His work on Indigenous folks in Australia
This was absolutely fantastic. You’ve earned yourself a subscriber! 👍❤️
The American Declaration of Independence is practically a line for line, word for word translation of the Act of Abjuration of 1581 in which the States General (yes, that is - still - Parliament) of the Netherlands withdrew their adherence to King Philip II. And Jefferson knew enough Dutch (and had access to Dutch speakers) to do it.
I actually went to that Constitutional convention. And I gotta say, it was very long and very boring.
awesome points!
Very minor correction: It’s “…in the persons of a >>distant>distinct
When people say slavery is our original sin, they are saying we were birthed amid that. It was here before the US was the US, and it has been our struggle to overcome throughout our history. More broadly, colonial racialism affected the culture and attitude of the US with all non-white populations. I don't think it is extreme to say racism has been our nation's great struggle throughout its history.
I’ve never heard myth 4,or 6, ever in life. Good stuff.
Happy almost Declaration Publication day!! RAAAA 🇺🇲🎆🦅
Good stuff man, keep mythbusting 🤘
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.
Yeah, I've gotta move quickly. Thanks for adding detail though. It's always appreciated
Oh, that's bad... Worse than British and Polish, I believe.
Georgia was actually the first state to give non-landowning whites the vote
Same year the constitution was ratified I believe
Pretty interesting stuff
@@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.
@@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?
Myth 11: The early Presidents did not have rap battles during cabinet meetings.
Myth 12: the American War for Independence was not won by Ben Franklin, George Washington, and George Washington’s Horse.
Myth 13: The American revolutionaries were not aided by a rooftop-hopping half-mohawk assassin wearing a white hood and a hidden blade.
Cabinet meeting rap battles isn't NOT in the history books....
The way this comment was framed makes it seem like the founding fathers DID, in fact, have rap battles in Cabinet Meetings.
Myth 15: some people think the founding fathers did not have rap battles, that is not the case.
Myth 11: George Washington had the Founding Titan and had to step away from the presidency due to Ymir's curse
Attack on Titan reference
But did he have the voice?
😂😂😂
Falsehood! Ban this traitor!
Myth???? we know it’s real
Myth: The Founding fathers were exemplars of level headed, sober leadership.
They were DEFINITELY NOT SOBER.
The receipts are public record.
@@eldorados_lost_searcher and they make a college frat party look like an AA meeting
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.
Jefferson was very sensitive and had trouble admitting he was wrong. See: his interpretation of the French revolution.
Hey, it's hot in Philly in the summer....😆
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?! 😀
Think of the Children!
Aye. That's what we call history. Knots and spirals everywhere, no straight path from a to b in sight.
That is correct. All black and white, no shades of grey.
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. 😂
@@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.
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.
I don't remember Bioshock using Jon McNaughton paintings. I think they had their own in-house artists make all of that
@@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.
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
@@__-vb3ht Holy shit yikes galore.
I… Your kidding me right?
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...
George Santos is based
I wonder why people dislike him so much 🤔
I mean he tells the truth!
@caseclosed9342 has anyone ever actually seen them in the same room, though? 🤔
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Santos stole them from the Iroquois Confederacy after single handedly defeating all its warriors
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI
Absolutely. He is a Jew-ish person, if you know what he means....
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)
Brilliant comparison xD
For anyone like me who doubted...nope, it's a legit quote.
The term gerrymandering is named in his honor (or dishonor).
🤯
Gerrymandering as in Gerrymanding😂😂
Another really important point to make is that Jewish values are not the same as Christian values. They should NOT be lumped together.
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.
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.
The Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Collectively known as “people of the book”. Their values ARE shared.
Islam and Christianity do not share the same book. @@ccsullivan9164
Imagine if people had to actually learn about history. Not just how they want it to be.
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.
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
Huh. I've heard it that way at least a time or two. Oh well.
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.
We should call them our Founding Daddies to help people realize how weird it is to call them our founding fathers.
@@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.
Lost causers pretty much defeat themselves. We don't need to make things up to frustrate them
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.
There is another myth. I certainly learned EVERYTHING covered in this video in school before the 7th grade.
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.
@@keithlatham4500Lucky Buster
I also learned most of this before 8th grade, some people are just idiots.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
I think he mentioned it in his list as "Stamp Act Congress" if this refers to the same act.
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.
@@meeeka
Really?
What are you guys waiting for?
;-)
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.
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.
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..
@@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.
In all fairness, our two original sins of genocide and slavery are both pretty bad. I think we can agree on that.
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”.
Gotta be specific :)
The agreed on the constitution. At least the ones that signed it.
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.
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.
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
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.
"Judaeo-Christian" is also incredibly antisemitic and feeds into supersessionism.
*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
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.
@@CynicalHistorian My thanks for catching the unintentional typo, it wasn't deliberate.
@@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 🤣
Oh here we go with the “anti-semitism is in everything”
So glad you mentioned the three fifths compromise. The misunderstanding of it is one of my biggest pet peeves.
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.
@@jordanwutkee2548It gave slaveholding states more power though. It gave them greater representation in the government not less. Did i misinterpret something you said?
@@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.
@@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.
@@NSOcarth I don't understand that logic at all...
#BadComments better get their popcorn ready, this is going to be a good one.
Still got loads of it after that failed russian civil war. It'll come to good use today.
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!
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.
@@JMM33RanMA I subscribe to Atun-Shei’s RUclips 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!
@@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
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
You mean like how the Romans ended the Kingdom and became the Roman Republic by replacing the King with the two Consuls and the Senate and turned it into an Oligarchy?
@@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.
@pascalausensi9592 True, I did condense, but even early on, only the wealthy elite had power or the right to vote. Over centuries, the Plebians gained more rights and power.
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?
@@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.
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.
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.
Half of the colonies would have completely rejected any proposal that would impact their livelihoods and economy by outlawing slavery.
The only one of these myths I sort of bought into was the "conservative revolution" one, and I still think the American revolution, for as trailblazing as it was, wasn't nearly as radical and transformative as some of the revolutions it inspired. I guess, as you said, it was a liberal revolution, and that's never really enough.
Also, two things I thought I might mention. 1) If anything were to be called America's original sin, I would say white supremacy fits the bill more than anything else. 2) The other people who tend to insist America isn't a democracy are the American diabolists and tankies who want to engage in Russia apologia/"multipolarity" apologia.
Yeah, I think "conservative" is used in different ways on matters like this, similar to the varying usages of "liberal" over the centuries. It's "conservative" insofar as many of the people involved in the revolution wanted a return to something more resembling their self-governing status quo before Parliament began levying the heavier taxes post-Seven Years War, and how life for much of the country didn't see the kind of massive shifts that came with many 20th century revolutions. But the video is absolutely right that the American Revolution's principles were unabashedly liberal.
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 :/
As opposed to the secular ideals being pushed today, I’d take “Christian Nationalism” over what we have today.
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.
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.
Tbf Ho Chi Min wasn’t exactly democratic either.
@@baneofbaneseither was the US.
@@ninja1antelope more so than North Vietnam has still yet to become.
@@baneofbanes OP never said he was
@@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.
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.
From what I’ve heard king George refused to allow colonists to have representation in parliament
@@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.
Nice to see you mention the Gaspee, I get sick of hearing about the tea party as the first strike of rebellion.
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.
I am violating the law and putting myself at extreme physical risk. I am listening to this outside in Lee county, Floriduh.
Thank you
😂
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!
Real men, the GigaChads if you will, learn history, accept it, and use it build a better society.
Thanks for revisiting more mythologies and u.s. origin story history.
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.
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.
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.
Judeo-Christian Values is like, classic doublespeak
@@seanbeadles7421 you also have a hard time getting people to actually list and define those values too.
@@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.
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.
Not to mention Judaism is just as internally diverse as Christianity if not more. Rabbis arguing and agreeing to disagree is a sport.
So glad you started where you did. Jesus Christ himself did not found America, no matter what Alex Jones says
Great video, I just wish the people who I would like to send it to were academic enough to understand it lmao
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.
Not just the pilgrims, but all Europeans who came to these shores
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.
The founders were not a monolith. Whiggishness was not universal and many founders specifically argued against it
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.
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.
The “UK” didn’t exist until 1921.
@@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
do people really think the US is a "Christian Country"?? Did they not learn WHY we came to America in the first place?? Religious freedom has always been a part of the constitution, so idk why people think that Christianity is the national religion or the moral and ethical compass for our laws.
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
My Unitaeian religeou education teacher compaired the bill of rights tovthe ten commandments. we kids were asked what a government could enfotcr with justice . for example murder can be proved with facts , but honoring your parents could not be proved or disproved. My question to you is whyare there tax laws that give established religions huge tax free money to invest in the stock markrt satelites broacasting etc. ?
the Christian nation paintings are peak cringe. What was the source?
They're all paintings by Jon McNaughton. And yeah, they are perfect example of how terrible Christian nationalism warps one's mind
Myth #7 has always amused me, if the constitution was flawless it wouldn't need amending. Yet it was, almost immediately.
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. )
washington was neither democrat or republican. Neither party existed as such and he specifically hated the idea of party identity as divisive to the fledgling nation.
That’s mostly a matter of shifting definitions. Policy-wise, he was a Federalist in all but name, and both parties initially liked to portray themselves as “not actually a party, but a group of concerned citizens trying to support the government/defend the constitution” because they tended to define parties as “insidious cabals seeking to destroy the government/constitution”, and anyone actually campaigning for office was considered a dangerous demagogue.
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. ✌️😎
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
Agreed good sir, the fight is not over, and neither are we, God Bless America
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.
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.
Regarding civics classes I graduated from hs in Texas in 97 and can confirm we had no civics classes at that time
@@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.
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.
True
@@jackthorton10 Yes, but every great and impactful movement evolves at some point.
That’s true, but Thomas Paine was pretty much always agitating for independence. And he was the freshest of immigrants having come in 1774.
@@stthomasaquarius he was one of the few before Lexington and Concord who wanted independence, hence the purpose of Common Sense after the battles.
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 💪🏻🇺🇲🙏🏻
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!
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.
Benjamin Franklin was more agnostic & Thomas Paine was more atheist, than originally thought
In my opinion, two of the greatest men to walk upon this earth.
I owe almost my entire political and philosophical worldview to them.
This video starts off swinging right out the gate and I love it
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.
here's an easy one: a lack of a standing army
American Myth #47- The Hokey Pokey was, in fact, Not what it was all about
As a christian, I do not agree with Christian nationalist title. But I do agree that this country was not founded off of Christianity. Nor do I believe that the founding fathers were Christians.
THIS CHANNEL IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED BY ME.
Myth 420:
Our founders did not decide the fate of our country using children’s trading cards from Egypt.
"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.
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?
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@hereigoagain5050 Phyllis Schafly! Jesus wept, yeah, I remember her. That name brings Jello Biafra and the Dead Kennedys to mind. Jello HATED her.
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.
The most relevant founding myth for the present is that the founders wanted a Christian theocracy
It makes me laugh when I see Americans ranting about how they don't want a national health service because they don't want to pay for other people's medical bills having seemingly forgotten how their existing insurance works!
Well, I say it makes me laugh... it's not funny, it's tragic really but I've learned over time to care less about such things and just embrace the absurdity of it all.
This American couldn’t agree with you more
That's a weird thing for a foreigner to think about.
@@OneOfThoseTypes Unfortunately US politics is big news here in the UK. It dominates the internet but even before that our media has been massively focused on US affairs.
Also there are US companies trying to get hold of the NHS and they have for many years been doing their best to influence policy makers and political parties.
It might be news to you but the rest of the world views the US healthcare system is an atrocity.
@@GrahamMilkdrop That makes you people look even more sad. We never think of the uk, because you're so small.
@@OneOfThoseTypes Who is this 'we' you are talking about? YOU might not think of anything other than yourself but your country's government, corporations and military like to interfere all over the world using your tax money. You should probably pay a bit more attention!
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.
I heard you were purging the comment section, so I'm going to say something bigoted.
Something bigoted.
Please put in more bigotted effort
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!
0:02 If we're debunking myths can we start out with how insanely stupid a way that is to stand in a rowing boat? Both Washington and the guy with the flag are almost certainly going to fall overboard.Given that they are probably wearing wool and the water is obviously close to freezing then that's the end for them right there. In the background there's a guy mounted on a horse in a rowing boat whilst the horse next to him rears up in fear. They also are going to fall overboard and die. It's actually a miracle you won the war of independence if everyone is going to be that catastrophically idiotic. Also, how long did they have to hold these dangerous poses before the painting was completed?
Are those all common things many Americans think about their revolution? I only have the European history class perspective, and I knew many of those myths weren’t true. A „conservative revolution“ is an oxymoron in itself.
Like most wars the revolution was a resource war hence the principal cause was land. It's no coincidence that the leaders were from the landed class, those that stood most to gain.
Thomas Paine also wanted to offer the vote to educated women. You see how far that went.
Well crafted presentation! I concur with all of its points!
Also: KITTY!!!!!
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.
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
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.
22:09 Didn't these voting requirements vary from state to state? Like New Jersey allowed women, Georgia allowed non-landowners, and some states allowed free black people to vote
“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
America is more like that Star Trek: TNG episode "Darmok" with our mythological telling of events. "Washinton on the Delaware. His arms closed, his eyes red."
I've been telling people this since my Civics teacher taught me all of this...in 7th grade. This period we are living in history makes me unironically want to unalive myself; the idea that people can spout Orwellian phrases at people trying to preserve democracy while claiming they are the real saviors because they are Christian and for no other reason, which is like TCH said...the most unpatriotic and unAmerican thing you can believe and do.
I’m a little glad I always felt left out of the American Mythos. When I picture living in the revolutionary war times, I picture myself making butter, staring out a window, thinking “oh good and righteous lord, all the people around me verily suck. All of them sucketh a big one, oh lord.”
A lot of people picture themselves living there now a plantation, or as a statesman. They don’t picture life without toilet paper but with smallpox.
#1 MYTH:
The Founders were Christian.
Tattoo this on every Republicans forehead
Representation in the US is also not equal. The citizens of small states have much more representation for their interests than do the citizens of large states.
Yes, that is the compromise that created the Senate.
That was by design - a compromise to make the union possible
Yeah, thank the electoral college for that.
When they bring in this school of choice thing, we will be able to teach atheism in Christian schools. We can spread the good word.