Lovely sentiments.
However, it is greatly embellished at best and just plain untrue at worst.
The story of the American founding is dramatic and inspiring enough that it does not need to be “supported” by half-truths and untruths.
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/pricepaid.asp
bttt
So Snopes’ dopes are now the official history revisionist?
Compare them to the politicians of today who are fleecing American for their own personal gain.
I question snopes sources for their supposed truths. Unless they can publish prints of the actual news paper articles then those books written by today's writers prove no more truthful to me then Rush's fathers address. Which by the way, I found to be was very moving and wonderfully written.
"At best?"
You need to reread your Snopes piece which - yes, does some debunking - but is also loaded with caveats such as "possibly", "more likely", "unlikely", etc.
And it's one thing to debunk with a categorical truth, quite another to debunk with a trashy speculation.
The truth is that we may never in many cases know the absolute unvarnished truth. But your Snopes article is laughable as an authoritative source for that endeavor.
Snopes? You believe Snopes? Grow some sense
or take your revisionist trolling somewhere else?
The more you look at what is published by Snopes the more you will find that their liberal bias often rivals CNN and the New York Times.