Ken Burns and his team set their eyes on the Holy Grail of U.S. history: The American Revolution

by

What do you think you know about the American Revolution?

Even after nearly 250 years, discussions about the Founding Fathers often rely on stories and traditions that aren’t entirely accurate. A new PBS documentary series shows that what we believe about this period in history, and what we actually know, can be quite different.

The war was incredibly harsh, widespread, and complicated, leading people of Indigenous descent and those who would become known as African Americans to fight for both the British and the Americans. Surprisingly, Benedict Arnold was a true hero for the American side at first. And George Washington, despite being a central figure in the war, wasn’t always successful – he didn’t have wooden teeth, and he authorized actions that deliberately damaged Native American food supplies.

According to Ken Burns, a renowned documentary filmmaker, George Washington wasn’t perfect and made mistakes as a military leader. However, Burns argues that the American Revolution – and the country it created – wouldn’t have been possible without him. His new PBS docuseries, “The American Revolution,” emphasizes that success wasn’t due to a single hero, but rather the collective effort of a dedicated team.

Using a baseball comparison, Burns points out that even a legendary hitter like Babe Ruth doesn’t succeed every time – he often strikes out. This means that at any crucial moment, the responsibility might fall to an unexpected player, someone lower in the batting order. The American Revolution wasn’t just about the famous heroes, he explains. It involved everyone – those who contributed to success, and even those whose efforts didn’t pan out. It’s a story about all the people who played a part, not just the highlights we typically see.

Washington is the central figure in this story. He’s rightly praised for the bravery that united the colonies and helped them overcome a powerful enemy. However, the series doesn’t shy away from showing his failures and shortcomings, both in battle and in other aspects of his life.

Director David P. Schmidt argues it’s crucial to acknowledge the full scope of George Washington’s history, including his investments in Western lands and military actions that displaced Native Americans to make way for settlers and profit. He also points out that Washington owned a plantation and enslaved hundreds of people, facts that shouldn’t be omitted from historical accounts.

Schmidt and Sarah Botstein, the directors, point to everyday factors like weather, rivers, and communication delays as things that significantly impacted how the war was fought, ultimately changing their understanding of the conflict.

According to Botstein, the American Revolution is often remembered with romanticized stories instead of being understood as the incredibly complex, violent, and unlikely global conflict it actually was. He emphasizes that it wasn’t just a fight for ideals, but a harsh and brutal 18th-century war on a worldwide scale.

Not your father’s revolution

The filmmakers, led by Geoffrey C. Ward, created a rich and detailed look at this historical period. They explored major battles, shared firsthand accounts from the era, and offered fresh insights. Though unable to interview people who lived through it or show photographs, they consulted leading historians and used a large cast of performers. The voice cast includes many famous actors, such as Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Samuel L. Jackson, and Morgan Freeman, with Josh Brolin portraying George Washington and Paul Giamatti reprising his Emmy-winning role as John Adams from an HBO series.

Burns explains that he was trying to move past the overly emotional and nostalgic feelings surrounding the war, to see it more clearly.

He points out that democracy wasn’t the initial goal, but rather something that developed as a result of the process.

Ward gets why people might feel uneasy thinking about that period – he felt it too. He recalls it feeling like a disconnected performance, saying, “It just felt like a group of people in costumes doing things that didn’t relate to our lives.” He adds that realizing this was a big lesson, admitting they hadn’t understood it at the time.

I think a lot of people, myself included, struggle to really connect with the Revolutionary War era. It feels so far removed from our lives, even though we all studied it in school! It’s amazing how Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “Hamilton” brought those historical figures to life and made them feel so relevant again. It really highlights why Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders thought it was so important for Americans to be educated – a strong republic depends on people understanding its history.

According to one historian, the American Revolution began as a struggle to protect the rights of those who owned property, but ultimately it was fought by the country’s poorest citizens.

Ward emphasizes that the revolution wasn’t won by elites or historical figures, but by everyday people with limited resources who weren’t even sure what the outcome would be.

Botstein explains that understanding war requires looking at both the actions of leaders and the experiences of those impacted by their choices. She hopes viewers will consider how leadership affects people during wartime, and how historical events connect to their own lives and family histories. She describes this approach as weaving together multiple stories to create a more personal and relatable narrative.

To illustrate the many different people involved, she names figures who may be unfamiliar to most viewers – everyday citizens and Native American leaders, as well as well-known individuals like the Marquis de Lafayette – explaining that each contributed to the story.

John Greenwood is the fascinating subject of a new account. Described by author Ward as a bit like Forrest Gump – but with more wit – Greenwood was a remarkably ordinary, yet articulate, young man who fought in the Revolutionary War. He experienced many of the war’s key battles before becoming a privateer. Despite being captured multiple times – Ward recalls around four or five times – Greenwood ultimately became a successful dentist in New York City. Incredibly, he was the dentist who pulled George Washington’s final teeth, and he carried one of those teeth on his watch chain as a proud keepsake for the rest of his life.

Burns clarifies that the replacement teeth aren’t made of wood, but rather from hippopotamus ivory.

Deeper and more dimensional

“The American Revolution” goes beyond simply fixing historical inaccuracies and detailing famous battles. It offers a deeper understanding of the reasons behind the conflict and the events that unfolded. The British weren’t interested in the American colonies solely for their resources or taxes; they saw them as a rapidly expanding marketplace. While American colonists, known as Patriots, spoke of liberty, the British surprisingly offered freedom to enslaved African Americans, and many joined the British forces, known as Loyalists.

Burns draws a parallel to the Boston Tea Party, where colonists disguised themselves, blending European clothes with approximations of Native American attire. While commonly believed to be a disguise to conceal identities or even blame local tribes, Burns points out a different interpretation from historians: the colonists were attempting to assert a new identity separate from Britain, symbolically claiming a native status and declaring, ‘We are different.’

He points out the irony of colonists later taking land from Native Americans across the country. He then asks what it means today, with this protest – the largest one so far – that participants are dressing as Native Americans. It’s a powerful statement, he argues, because it shows they identify more with America and its original inhabitants than with Britain. He sees it as a significant turning point.

Native Americans weren’t a single unified group during the war. Different tribes and individuals chose sides, with some supporting the Patriots and others the Loyalists, and they significantly impacted the conflict’s outcome.

According to Burns, the conflict was a widespread and brutal one, involving over two dozen nations – both European and Native American. He emphasizes that tribes like the Shawnee and Oneida each had their own independent policies and were very different from one another. Therefore, it’s inaccurate to treat all Native Americans as a single group; they were as diverse as European nations like France, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

Aside from national identities, diverse groups with different interests existed, such as enslaved and free Black people, and women.

What struck me most about this story is the sheer, undeniable presence of women. It wasn’t just a supporting role; they were everywhere. They weren’t simply bystanders, but vital to keeping the resistance going, present at every conflict – observing, assisting, and, crucially, sometimes directly fighting alongside everyone else. It really highlights how integral they were to the entire revolutionary effort, and frankly, it’s astonishing how often that contribution gets overlooked.

This miniseries highlights the deeply personal and divisive nature of the war, showing how it turned neighbors and even relatives into enemies. It tells the story of John Peters, a Vermont resident loyal to the British crown, who tragically finds himself fighting and killing a friend from his childhood.

According to Ward, Benjamin Franklin’s own son was a staunch Loyalist. This conflict deeply divided families, not only among colonists but also within Native American communities. The Six Nations, previously united, found themselves fractured by the war.

Resonances and rhymes

You know, everyone working on this film is quick to say that if it feels relevant to what’s happening in the world right now, it’s just a total accident. It was a really long process – about ten years in the making – so any parallels with current events definitely weren’t planned.

Botstein notes that people are often surprised by how far in the past the interviews actually happened, given that the historians’ accounts feel incredibly recent.

According to Burns, a German general’s wife postponed her trip to the U.S. because she’d heard rumors that Americans eat cats. Also, there was an unsuccessful attempt to annex Canada as the 14th state, and a widespread pandemic sparked debates over vaccination. (Historians now see George Washington’s decision to vaccinate his troops against smallpox as a smart move that helped secure victory.)

According to historian Ken Burns, studying history doesn’t show us exact repeats of the past, but rather recurring patterns. As Mark Twain famously put it, history ‘rhymes.’ Because human nature remains constant, understanding history gives us valuable insight into people – both the admirable and the flawed – throughout time. We see the same types of individuals emerge repeatedly, like Benedict Arnold, a brilliant and dedicated general who ultimately betrayed his principles.

It might be surprising to discover how brave and effective Arnold was as a soldier for the Patriots before he became known as a traitor. Some people wonder why it’s important to examine history so closely, even if it means revealing the flaws of historical figures.

Ward points out that people are imperfect, and those we admire from the past were no different. Recognizing the flaws of even the most heroic figures is crucial for progress, because they were just as capable of mistakes, vanity, and being misled as we are. That, he believes, is the key takeaway.

History shows us that anyone – people just like you and me – can accomplish amazing things. It’s a reminder that greatness isn’t reserved for special individuals, but achievable by ordinary people.

Read More

2025-11-12 14:32