In 2026, we celebrate the United States of America鈥檚 250^th birthday 鈥� also known as the semiquincentennial (a word so convoluted that spellcheck doesn鈥檛 recognize it, so we have decided America250 is simpler). As we do so, we should take some time to reflect on what we think we know about our bold declaration of independence and the American Revolution that followed.

Here are some common misconceptions about the revolutionary era that show popular memory doesn鈥檛 necessarily reflect reality.

鈥淭he British(?) are Coming!鈥�

Legend has it that in Boston on the evening of April 18, 1775, silversmith and now folk hero Paul Revere watched for flashing lanterns from the Old North Church 鈥� one if by land and two if by sea 鈥� and when he saw the two flashes, he jumped onto his horse for his midnight ride through the Massachusetts countryside yelling the 鈥淏ritish are coming!鈥�

This shout brought out the militia in Lexington and Concord and also warned Sam Adams and John Hancock, two revolutionaries who some believed were the target of this secret British military mission. Armed and ready for the British soldiers to enter their villages, early the next morning, the militia fired the first shots of the American Revolution and pushed the Redcoats back to Boston. A fighting war had begun.

If one ponders the date for long enough, one might see the problem with the words that Revere allegedly shouted. In April 1775 (and for 14 months thereafter), Revere, the militia, and everyone he woke up were still British. Most likely, he shouted 鈥渢he Regulars,鈥� 鈥渢he Redcoats,鈥� or 鈥渢he king鈥檚 men,鈥� were coming, which all have less catchy rings to them.

Washington鈥檚 (Perilous?) Crossing.

If we can鈥檛 believe our ears regarding Paul Revere鈥檚 Midnight Ride, we also cannot believe our eyes about one of the most famous images of the American Revolution, Washington Crossing the Delaware. The giant (12 feet by 21 feet) painting depicts Christmas evening 1776 when the United States鈥� independence hung in the balance.

General George Washington and his army traveled from Pennsylvania where they would surprise Hessian mercenaries at Trenton, New Jersey.聽 After a tough few months which included the evacuation of New York City, these victories helped restore the Americans鈥� morale.

German American artist Emanuel Leutze painted the image in Germany almost 75 years later. Meant to inspire German revolutionaries more than serve as an exact depiction of the event, the painting is filled with inaccuracies. It contains a flag that did not yet exist, ice bergs that did not appear in the Delaware River, Washington positioned in a manner which unnecessarily courted the danger of falling overboard, too much light for the crossing, and far too small a boat (in 2011, Mort Kunstler painted a more accurate version).

Yet, at the same time, others have praised Leutze鈥檚 version for sacrificing precise details for a larger truth. His painting has a wide cross section of Americans including farmers, riflemen, a Scotsman, two future presidents (Washington and James Monroe), men from a variety of states, an African American, and perhaps a woman. Thus, it is the archetypal American melting pot and conveys Americans鈥� determination in the time that tried men鈥檚 souls.

All Colonists were not Team Rebel.

We know that 13 original colonies revolted against British rule. In 1776, however, Britain had more than 30 colonies stretching from Canada through the Caribbean. Among those was Florida. Technically, Florida was two colonies (East Florida and West Florida). One would think that the two Floridas would have excitedly joined their neighbors to the north in rebellion as they had only been British colonies for 13 years (having been under Spanish rule from 1565鈥�1763).

Yet, when news of the Declaration of Independence reached St. Augustine, instead of embracing the document, the settlers reaffirmed their loyalty to the king and hung effigies depicting two leading revolutionaries that Revere had warned: John Hancock and Sam Adams. The former was the first signer of the Declaration of Independence and the president of Continental Congress, and the latter was a Boston radical, better known today as a brewery owner.

Why didn鈥檛 the Floridas revolt? Frankly, they disliked the British colonies more than they disliked England. They saw themselves as connected to the British Caribbean colonies, which also remained loyal to the king.

The Legend Behind A Cherry Tree.

In myth busting about the American Revolution, one can also tackle George Washington 鈥� he did tell lies, he didn鈥檛 chop down a cherry tree (that anecdote was invented by 19th-century bookseller Parson Weems), and the once commander-in-chief didn鈥檛 win many major battles in the early years of the revolution. However, Washington, if anything, is underestimated for his contributions to American history.

Washington did what many of his contemporaries considered to be unthinkable 鈥� he gave up power. Not once but twice.

When the war ended in 1783, Washington was a conquering hero who could have asked for anything. Instead, he simply requested retirement to Mount Vernon. Later, he returned to politics at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and then was elected the nation鈥檚 first president in 1789. After serving two terms, he retired again (the constitutional provision limiting a president to two terms didn鈥檛 come until the 22^nd amendment in 1951).

Thus, he set a precedent that president would not serve for life but instead would rotate regularly out of office.

A Day to Celebrate 鈥� But Which Day?

None of the above should stop you from celebrating in July. After all, as one of the declaration鈥檚 authors and our second president John Adams wrote in letter to his wife about Independence Day, it 鈥渨ill be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.鈥擨 am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival . . .聽 It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other.鈥�

Other than omitting hot dog eating contests, this sounds fairly accurate. Alas, nothing is ever simple. Adams wrote this prediction on July 3, 1776, about future July 2s (not July 4s).

On July 2, the Continental Congress voted to declare independence. Two days later, on July 4, its members adopted the Declaration of Independence with John Hancock, the president of the Continental Congress, putting his John Hancock on the document.

Historians just have to ruin everything, don鈥檛 we?

Why did delegates to the Constitutional Convention struggle so much deciding upon the best method for selecting the president that they needed to postpone the debate several times?

Fear.

They feared a strong executive. They feared Congress controlling the president. They feared men with 鈥渢alents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity鈥� charming ill-informed voters (). They feared voters only supporting local candidates. They feared that the president would be subservient to any group that selected him, so instead they ended up with a cumbersome process that used specially chosen electors to elect the president.

To further complicate things, the process immediately unraveled and almost never worked as intended. Their plan was that voters would select prominent men as electors.聽 These men (and they were, of course, all elite white men) would have a greater breadth of knowledge of gentlemen from other states, and they would be free to choose anyone they wished. Theoretically, every four years, the electors would vote for the best candidates and the nation would prosper from their wise choices.

There were a litany of things the delegates did not anticipate: political parties (they feared these, too), joint tickets for president and vice president (they planned for the person who came in second place to be vice president), candidates actively running for office, improved communication and a growing trust in democracy (The Constitution allows each state to decide how to select its own electors. So, for a time, some voters did not even get to choose the electors let alone vote for president.)

Some of these problems have been resolved. The 12^th amendment ended the idea that the person who comes in second becomes the vice president. Since 1868, in every state, people vote for the president, and the state electors are generally bound by their decision.

Neither of these changes, however, have resolved the biggest complaint against the Electoral College. With electoral votes based on the number of congressmen and senators a state has, a candidate 鈥� with victories in the correct combination of states 鈥� can win the presidency while losing the popular vote.

Since the Constitution鈥檚 ratification, there have been over 1,000 amendments proposed to change or eliminate the Electoral College. These proposals generally offer the obvious solution; the president should be the candidate who gets the most popular votes. Given that, according to most polls including a 2023 Pew Research Center study, approximately two out of three Americans 聽support this change, why haven鈥檛 we just amended the Constitution to have the president popularly elected? As is often the case, the easy solution is not as easy as it seems. The problems include:

• Amending the Constitution. It is not easy to amend the Constitution. An amendment needs the support of two-thirds of each branch in Congress and three-quarters of the states. Getting congressional support has proven problematic (in 1969, Congress came close 鈥� the House approved a popular vote amendment, but the Senate did not).While two-thirds of Americans might favor a change in the Electoral College, the current leadership of the Republican Party does not. Why not? Well, in the last 24 years, two Republicans (George W. Bush and Donald Trump) have won the presidency with fewer votes than their Democratic opponent (and 2020 almost made it a third time.)

  While the electoral college currently skews Republican, that has not always been the case. In the 19 elections since World War II, it has favored Democrats nine times and Republicans ten times. Based on the 2022 midterm results and recent polling in 2024 swing states, studies also show that it might be trending towards Democrats in the upcoming years.

• Vote fraud. Nearly every election produces allegations of vote fraud. In the current system, however, those allegations are often muted. How? The electoral college successfully smooths over most minor vote fraud. Right now, the relevant question is not whether there was any vote fraud but whether there were enough fraudulent votes to change a state鈥檚 electoral vote and potentially change the results in the Electoral College.In a popular vote world, where every vote counts, so does every fraudulent vote. Does anyone truly believe there has ever been a presidential election without fraudulent votes? Not even one or two? Unlike the Electoral College, a popular vote system encourages, albeit unintentionally, overzealous partisans to take every edge they can.
• Close races. The 2000 presidential election is one of the elections where the popular vote winner (Al Gore) lost. It was the first time that it had happened since 1888. The race came down to a few hundred votes in Florida. Popular vote supporters use this an example of the flaws in the Electoral College, but that election also demonstrates some of the potential complications in using popular vote totals. For one thing, Gore didn鈥檛 win a majority of the popular vote. No one did. He won a plurality. Because of third party candidates, Gore received 48.4% of the popular vote. Is that enough? Or would we have a runoff? How would a runoff work?Neither party was happy with the recount procedure. Florida law stipulated it must be completed in a week, but it quickly became apparent that accurately recounting votes by hand took much more time than that. Plus, there was a sense that the recount was no more accurate than the original results. Imagine a situation where this occurred at a nationwide level. A national recount would be an incredibly complex and divisive event involving competing and unprovable sets of numbers as well as lengthy legal challenges. And, it would undoubtedly be unsatisfying as even a cursory dive into studies on the Florida vote count reveals the futility of trying to finding the exact numbers of votes that either Bush or Gore received.

We are the only nation that still uses an Electoral College. If other countries have figured out how to run a national popular presidential election, should the United States consider making a change? The nation, or maybe a new Committee on Postponed Parts, would have to come up with a plan which resolves some of these potential pitfalls. Given that this discussion has already lasted well over 100 years, we may be in for 100 more.