Top 10 historical facts all Americans are taught.....that are total bullshit. part 1

So as Americans there's a whole lot we take for granted about our country and our history...and its stuff we like to reference pretty much everytime we talk about the state of our country, how great America is, why America did X, ect.

Problem is, a whole lot of it is glossed over bullshit. But worse much of that is bullshit your teachers taught you, to promote America the myth we all want to believe in, not America it actually was.  Basically think it like turning off the lights so you can pretend your having sex with Mila Kunis, and not the "pretty cute" girl from apartment 212. We all kinda know this stuff isnt true, but we all really want to believe it.

These are ranked by my opinion of how unlikely the generic public are to know them, with the first fact being the one someone is most likely to know, and the 10th being the one people are least likely to know. I'm basing this scale just on how often I see/hear people get these wrong in conversation.

So here we go

1) John Hancock's signature on the declaration of Independence is HUGE because he had the biggest balls.

So yea, theres a good chance when you think of the signing of the Declaration it looks a little something like this:

And all those guys lined up and one by one signed the thing....starting with Hancock because he's the one who had the balls to go first.

Well here's the thing....that picture isnt real. I mean the painting itself is real....its in the rotunda of the US capitol. But the event depicted didnt exactly happen like that. Many of the people in the picture werent even in congress at the time, Many more wouldnt have been in the room, ect ect.

Now one thing that IS accurate and probably surprising to most people is that John Hancock is the man sitting in the chair.....because he was the President of the Convention (and you thought it was Washington....that would be the later constitutional convention).

Which basically meant that Hancock was the head of the Continental Congress...which at the time was the only branch of "government" the revolutionaries recognized....which basically made him the defacto head of state for soon to be former colonies. Which also meant he was the only person who had to sign the thing for it to have legal weight.

Thats the real reason his signature is so damn big....its the only one that was supposed to go on it. And by the way, his was the ONLY one on the copy of the declaration that was actually sent to King George. The version we all know and love would be signed over the course of a decade or so by many early Continental congressman....including some who werent actually there.

So yea, I know everyone thinks Hancock was ballsy, and his ballsyness actually got his name linked to the word Signature in american slang....but yea sorry.....BULLSHIT!

2)Constitution first governing document

So yea, everyone knows the founders signed the Declaration, won the war, made the Constitution and YAY AMERICA!

The part no one puts together in their heads though is that the Declaration was signed in 1776 and the Constitution was written in 1787, went into effect in 1788.

So yea, there is this really odd 11/12 year gap. So what exactly were we as a country doing during that period?  Yes I know, winning the revolution....but even that only takes us up to 1783. Plus even during a war you need some kind of government dont you?

Enter the articles of Confederation, drafted almost immediately after the Declaration in 1776 and formally ratified by all 13 colonies in 1781. (although thats only due to Maryland, the other colonies had all ratified by 1779).

Now the government under the articles of confederation supported a super strong state government (that could overrule the national one on many issues), and a really weak limited small national government. Also a national government that cant tax, or spend money (except to pay off the debt).

Now I'm sure at this point some people might notice, this sounds a little familiar, like say the vision of american government laid out by the republican party. Which is ironic because many on the right also think the Constitution is divinely inspired, yet it is it predecessor they wish to go back to.  I guess its hard to admit God needed a "do-over"

Of course it should also likely be pointed out the reason we switched is because the Articles were seen as being such a failure that the founders decided it wasnt even worth saving, said "fuck it" and started over again, this time with a [comparatively] much more powerful and larger National Government.

And since we all like to believe the founders were always right, we have never discussed the articles since, even removing it as much as possible from our history books.

3) emancipation proclamation freed slaves. Actually no. The emancipation proclamation freed no one.

I actually mentioned this one when I named Lincoln our greatest president a while back, but for those who didnt read that blog, a recap, for those who did read it....more details:

Ok so the actually entire thing is about 5 pages long, but its only the first couple of paragraphs that matter here

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."


"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Alright so lets translate that down to plain English.

First paragraph says that at the beginning of 1863 slaves are considered free.....BUT only if they reside in the states rebelling against the government.....(those being the states that wouldnt follow this edict anyways)

Second Paragraph says that at the beginning of 1863 any state that is not in active rebellion isnt bound by this anyways.

Which meant any state in the North/Union that had slaves (as 4 did) could keep them no problem.

At this point its worth noting that the Proclamation was made September 22nd 1862....but didnt go into effect until Jaunary 1863. The idea was to use those 5 months to "lure back" some of the southern states with the promise of being able to keep slavery if they rejoined before the deadline.

Of course the wording was made this obtuse intentionally, the second (and possibly more important) purpose of the Proclamation was to create the impression overseas that the US was coming out against slavery. This was because both England and France were in the process of making war materials (including ironclads) for the south......which might have allowed the south to win, however both countries also had laws prohibiting them from aiding a slave power in a war against a free power. So if the US looked like a free power, Europe would stay out of it.

And the proclamation worked in that respect, Europe saw what they wanted to see, as did much of th rest of the world.  It worked so god damn well that 150 years later its generally accepted as the document that freed ALL slaves, despite being intentionally set up to do the exact opposite.

Well played Mr. President, well played.

4) Founders wanted a democratic/representative government.

Not exactly. So while the founders clearly wanted a more representative form of government then they had under the king....in that they wanted a say of some kind, they actually went to pretty long and specific lengths to make the new government unaccountable to the people.

Ok so the american government the Founders laid out involved 3 branches. Now everyone knows the Judicial Branch is basically totally unaccountable to the people, the are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.

But the other 2/3rds of the government are accountable to the people right?

Not originally.

Ok so first the president. Alright so here's america's dirty little secret. YOU DONT GET TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT EVER. even today this is true,

What you do get to vote for is a delegate to the electoral college, and THAT person votes for president a few weeks after the election, and that person actually doesnt have to follow the popular vote (I explained this and how it might work years ago in an early blog).

Now these day's I doubt any large enough group of electors would be dumb enough NOT to follow the popular vote, because of the massive shitstorm that would follow. But back in the day the president DIDNT campaign for the job,  and well electors switching up votes would happen all the time.

So yea, basically the electoral college was designed from the get go to make sure YOU couldnt actually directly vote for president......because you lacked the understanding to pick the right person (this is the actual logic by the way).

Which brings us to the 3rd and final branch of government. Now somewhat well known is the fact that until the passage of the 17th amendment, senators were not elected, but were appointed, making them unaccountable to the american public.

So thats already 2 branches and 1/2 of the 3rd originally designed to be unaccountable.

Now much less widely known however is that even the one sub-branch of government that is directly accountable was designed with an unaccountable check to it.

Ok so the current Speaker of the House is John Boehner, who also happens to the Representative from Ohio 8th district. And his predecessor was Nancy Pelosi who also happened to be the  Representative of California's 12th district, and so on and so on.

But it doesnt HAVE to be that way. According to the Consistution the US house can choose whoever the hell they want to be Speaker.......even someone who isnt actually in the House of Representatives. (which is never happened, but is possible). So while all speakers to date have been unelected by the overwhelming majority of the country, its actually possible to have one who was never elected by anyone anywhere.

 And it's worth noting that the positions of Minority and Majority leader didnt exist until the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th century. So historically the Speaker had most of the potential power and control of the house....and was (and still is) unelected by the majority of american's (ditto for the Majority and Minority leaders, and Whips ect)

So yea, while for their time the Founders wanted a more Representative government than a monarchy, we as a county really dont like to talk about or focus on the massive intentional steps they took to keep any real power well out of the range of the common voter to impact/the steps they took to make the majority of government unaccountable to citizens.  

Now this is getting a little long, so I think I going to wrap up this part here. I should have the remaining 6 historical facts that are bullshit up soon (luckily most of those require less explanation so I should be able to do them all as one post). So yea, hopefully you now know 4 things you didnt know before, and will learn 6 more soon.