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."
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."
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."
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was essentially the second american revolution, in that the new government essentially (and potentially illegally) superseded the old government lock stock and barrel.