Historians have found little evidence that Manuela Beltrán existed
atlasobscura.com
atlasobscura.com
Soviet historiography has invented a whole Russian revolutionary worker movement (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party), which contains surprisingly few people who were either ethnically Russian or were employed as workers for more than a few months. No shortage of revolutionaries in it, though.
It's the kind of thing that seems inevitable with such events. I highly doubt Romulus and Remus were actually children raisedby wolves that founded Rome, but that's what the history books will say.
This is a weird example to prove your point. There are absolutely no current historians seriously claiming Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus, and even contemporary Romans didn't really believe the story (sort of: Roman beliefs about their own history were a delicate balance of keeping a few different, mutually contradictory, ideas in mind simultaneously, but it's safe to say that a lot of them didn't think the story of Romulus and Remus was literally true).
My point is that over the centuries every founding story becomes a "legend" that basically can't be considered true, like the founding of Rome. Eventually people should look back on it and say "that's highly mythologized nonsense."
I don't think there will ever, or should ever, be a time when people look back and doubt the rough narrative behind the founding of the US.
The original genesis of the constitutional convention was a trade problem, although I read at one point it started as a navigation/fishing dispute between the Mid-Atlantic states.
In any case, it was interesting that the new constitution was essentially the second american revolution, in that the new government essentially (and potentially illegally) superseded the old government lock stock and barrel.
Yes, there are obviously some mythological stories about the US founding fathers (George Washington's cherry tree, for example). But there are also reams and reams of historical evidence for their true activities and true natures, and it's absurd to claim that they are somehow "complete fabrications".
An example of this is "Hamilton." The musical and the book that inspired it tell a version of events different enough to what other sources say that it may as well be complete fiction.
Genuinely wondering - Where do those other sources differ, and why are they authoritative enough to mean the book Alexander Hamilton may as well be complete fiction? Looking online, I can't really find much contemporary criticism of its accuracy from the time of its release or afterwards, just general acclaim from book reviewers. I can't find much academic opinion of it either way, save for one review I don't have library access to but seems to have a positive first page.[0]
I'm not really familiar with the musical, but I did find a few articles noting Ron Chernow consulted on its historical accuracy. I wouldn't really hold a musical theater production to the same standard of historic accuracy as a biography, though, so I am more curious why you describe the biography as "complete fiction."
How the Hawaiian islands were “created”. How the Japanese archipelago came to be…
All quite unrealistic even more so than children raised by wolves, but people repeat it as a suspended belief and mystic flair without literally believing them.
I am guessing he is of Spanish descent, which nowadays would make any stores about him BIPOC-washed right?
Are were you talking about the founding fathers of some other country in America?
Some easy examples are being taught things like Betsy Ross creating the first flag or Paul Revere's ride, but in general most of it said the founding fathers were great men who could basically do no wrong, except slavery which was a necessary evil. Not flawed politicians mostly looking out for themselves first, which is more of what they were
You can go and read the Federalist Papers, the notes and minutes of the various conventions, the letters, articles, and books that they've written. Did George Washington chop down a cherry tree? Probably not. Did he thwart a coup attempt? Yes, he most certainly did.
Same with the other guys.
As Revolutionaries go they're the most successful band of revolutionaries by far, in that their work is still going and hasn't failed miserably like the work of those "other" revolutionaries.