Founding Myths: Stories That Hide our Patriotic Past
by Ray Raphael
A Book Review by Kyle Sondgeroth
March 2009
Every child growing up in the United States hears great stories of our colonial
heroes: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, or even Molly Pitcher.
We also hear stories dealing not with individuals but with events: “The Shot Heard
‘Round The World,” The Winter at Valley Forge” or “The Surrender at Yorktown.” In all
probability we are given these stories in elementary school and never question their
validity. Ray Raphael’s book Founding Myths: Stories That Hide our Patriotic Past
seeks to shed light on these and other stories from our colonial past. In the book,
Raphael argues that the stories that have been woven over the past 200-plus years of
American history have been contorted and twisted into a history that we the people want
to believe. The American people, both at the time of the founding of the nation, and in
the ensuing years, bought into stories of intellectual superiority (Jefferson), hardship
(Valley Forge), and good vs. evil (the shots fired at Lexington and Concord). The rub
lies in the fact that that not all of these stories or the morals behind them are historically
accurate. Raphael argues that the people of our nation bought into these so-called
“Myths” because they wanted, if not needed these stories to weave together a nation. In
essence, these “Founding Myths” exist because people initially wanted and still want to
hear them, not because they are true or historically accurate but because they bind us
together as a nation.
In doing so, however, Raphael dually argues that we have covered up the true
stories of a nation. In Founding Myths Raphael seeks to clear up historical inaccuracies
by replacing them with A) What truly happened from 1773 (Boston Tea Party) - 1781
(Yorktown Surrender) and B) Why those events spun out stories and tales that were
different from their original historical context. Raphael’s argument is that these stories
helped to define us as a nation. They have held the foundation of this nation for so long,
to take them away would be tantamount to taking away the soul of the United States as
we know it. In the introduction of the book Raphael states:
“Like rumors, the tales are too good not to be told. They are
carefully crafted to fit a time-tested mold. Successful stories feature
heroes or heroines, clear plotlines, and happy endings. Good does
battle against evil, David beats Goliath, and wise men prevail over
fools. This invented past, anointed as ‘patriotic,’ paints a flattering
self-portrait of our nation.” (Raphael, 5)
Raphael is asserting that these stories were too easy not to be told in a simplistic
fairy tale-type version. The tale of a small, under-sized country defeating an over-taxing,
heavy-militarized European giant is a great story. It is filled with heroes, villains, fiery
oratory, well-written documents, and adversities overcame at every turn. Unfortunately,
as Raphael also proves time and again, these stories were too good to be true.
Although each one does hold a grain of truth, they were inflated to trump the American
cause during the Revolution and eventually give birth to the meaning of America in the
years to follow.
Raphael organizes the book by topic: “Heroes and Heroines,” “David and
Goliath,” “Wise Men,” and “Doing Battle” are a few of the topics that Raphael explores in
Founding Myths. Perhaps one of the most interesting topics is “David and Goliath.” This
topic also extends into our Boston trip as it explores the relationship between the
colonists in Massachusetts and the British government. The chapter entitled “The Shot
Heard ‘Round the World” explores this relationship. The shots at Lexington and
Concord did not ignite the Revolutionary War but rather colonists in Massachusetts
really brought war onto themselves in 1774. After the Boston Tea Party in December
1773, the British Crown decided to pass the Boston Port Act as retribution. According to
Raphael “The Boston Port Bill, which prohibited all commerce to and from
Boston….intended to isolate Boston and starve its rebellious residents into submission,
but this plan backfired when other colonists sprang to the aid of their brothers and
sisters.” (Raphael, 70). Basically, Parliament had intended to starve out the citizens of
Boston for their insubordination. Little did they realize, however, that the surrounding
citizens of Massachusetts would come to the aid of Bostonians. It was after this that led
to an event which would push all colonists in Massachusetts toward the shots heard
‘round the world and eventual war with Britain.
One month after the Port Bill was passed by Parliament, they also passed the
Massachusetts Government Act. One myth that Raphael seeks to dispute is that the
colonists had little or no say in their local government. While it is true that they had no
Members of Parliament and that the Crown appointed their governor, the people of
Massachusetts had quite a bit of say in their local affairs. They held town meetings to
elect “council members” similar to our local municipal governing bodies of today. These
town meetings also elected members of the governor’s cabinet, judges, and police
officers. In August of 1774, Parliament took away this privilege with the Massachusetts
Government Act.
The Massachusetts Government Act, passed a month after the Port
Bill, dictated that people could no longer come together in their
town meetings without permission from the Crown-appointed
governor, and they could not discuss any items the governor had
not approved. The act further stipulated that the people’s elected
representatives would no longer determine the Council, which
comprised the upper house of the legislature, the governor’s
cabinet, and the administrative arm of provincial government. After
a century and a half of local self-government, citizens of
Massachusetts were suddenly deprived of the power of their votes.
(Raphael, 70)
So, where does a Founding Myth come in to this story? It does so shortly after
the Massachusetts Government Act went into place. The shots heard at Lexington and
Concord often are portrayed as innocent American bloodshed at the hands of ruthless
British redcoats. Raphael argues that these shots were actually provoked by
Massachusetts colonists trying and, in some cases, overthrowing a sitting government
for the Massachusetts Government Act.
Six months before the shots heard at Lexington and Concord, citizens of
Massachusetts told:
…their angry neighbors to resign. The few who refused were driven
from their homes and forced to flee. In the late summer and early of
1774, patriots did not simply protest the government, they
overthrew it. When the Massachusetts Government Act took effect,
the people of Massachusetts shut down the government and
prepared for war. This was the stuff of revolution. The people of
Massachusetts forcibly overthrew the old regime and began to
replace it with their own.” (Raphael, 73)
The Revolutionary War did not begin at Lexington or Concord. It began more than a
year before when the citizens of Massachusetts forcibly tried to regain control of their
local government. Raphael argues that we do not want to hear of British governors
being tarred and feathered or kicked out of their homes. This would make the colonists
seem like the aggressors. We conveniently leave out this portion of our American past.
We instead focus on the shots at Lexington and Concord and the 8 farmers who gave
their life for the republic.
Raphael’s argument that is weaved throughout the entire book is that the story of
Lexington and Concord has some truth to it. Minutemen were gunned down in the
middle of the night and the British soldiers did hold a supreme advantage. The main
crux of his argument lies in the fact that we choose to leave out some other important
details for the sake of “patriotism.” The story of America would not sound so sweet if we
had known that these same martyrs who laid dead at Lexington and Concord were out
driving British governors from their homes a month before the event. The “heroes” in
this story can easily be seen as “villains” if we take the rose-colored glasses off and look
at the historical context of 1774. The problem, Raphael ascertains, is that we have worn
these glasses for so long that we want to hear no other story. Americans have come to
know and love these stories. These stories have become so ingrained with the
American spirit that they cloud the line between fact and myth.
As a classroom teacher it is tough to draw this line between historical fact and a
patriotic myth. Is our job to promote accuracy in our historical teaching? Ray Raphael
would certainly argue “yes” to that question. Or is our job to support a patriotic love for
America, no matter how distorted that message may be? One of the more interesting
chapters in the book is a look at Paul Revere’s ride. Raphael argues that Revere was
one of hundreds of people in a long, complicated line of signalers that informed local
militia men that the British were coming. He was, in essence, a small cog in a very
complex line of communication. His story was made famous in an 1860 poem by Henry
Wadsworth Longfellow. The poem was actually written to drum up support for another
war-the American Civil War. Revere was certainly not the only messenger in April 1775
and portraying him as such steals credit from the hundreds of other riders, bell ringers,
and messengers who helped aid the American Revolution. Raphael’s argument is that
we want a “hero” to whom we can assign credit for this victory. Raphael claims that we
should credit all messengers for their role, not just one silversmith from Boston.
My response to this claim is that we may be overanalyzing the problem of
historical accuracy here. As a fourth-grade teacher do I want my kids to know the
names of the hundreds of messengers in the Revolutionary War? Or do I want them to
know that brave, young men and women such as Paul Revere played a part in the
Revolution? I would choose the latter. Raphael would state that the historical inaccuracy
here is what has hidden our past. I would argue that the historical thought is still there,
thus giving credence to the ideas that these stories are seeking to strike with the reader.
Do we have to know that the winter of 1775-1776 was actually much worse than the
winter of 1776-1777 and that many of Washington’s men did desert the army? Or that
those who did not desert at Valley Forge were actually hired servants or poor farmers
who couldn’t afford to leave the army? Those historical accuracies can be debated and
they show up in Founding Myths. My response to those arguments is that they may be
important, but so too is the installation of a national spirit. Sometimes a myth, whether
entirely accurate or not, has the means to gain that spirit in young children and place
patriotism in them for a good cause.
I would certainly recommend this book for the simple reason that Raphael makes
good sense of his argument as he goes along. Myths and stories were ballooned out
because people wanted to hear them as they formed a new nation. Soon these myths
took on a life of their own. They supplanted what really happened with what people
craved: Well defined stories about good vs. evil with heroes and villains already predetermined. Founding Myths does do a great job of giving the historical background for
each “story” that was woven. Molly Pitcher, for instance, was not a real woman. A camp
follower, however, named Mary McCauley was indeed real. As can be inferred,
McCauley has several reasons for following a camp of men around, but those stories
are not what we want to hear when discussing the birth of a nation. The American
people, as Raphael would assert, have gotten what they desired, perhaps even
required, a bag full of colorful heroes, events, and stories that, when put together,
create the fabric of a nation.