This Week in American History: How to Say Goodbye to a King ⁠65%

By Jonathan Horn⁠0%

7/8/2026, 6:03:08 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Representativeness Heuristic, Unattributed Quote, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 75.4% saturation with 261 hits. Analysis detected 1,180 faulty-reasoning hits from 346 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠65% (7,756 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.60% of the article peer group.

Eight months ago, we invited the historian Jonathan Horn to take us week by week through the personalities, battles, events, and ideas that led British colonists in the New World to risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in the glorious cause of becoming Americans. 
Along the way, Jonathan has illuminated other parts of our history, too. 
And now, having reached the anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, he signs off with one more great column about one of the most famous acts of iconoclasm in American history. 
Thank you, Jonathan. —The Editors 
Among the many excuses offered for the mobs of monument topplers during the summer of 2020 was that our Founders had done no less. 
It was popular to point out that on the night of July 9, 1776, some of George Washington’s own troops had scaled the iron fence surrounding Bowling Green in New York City, thrown ropes up over the two-ton equestrian statue in the middle, and pulled down the gilded-lead horse and its rider, King George III. 
Conveniently left out of certain tellings of the story was what happened afterward: Washington rebuked the vandals for, as he explained in his orders the next day, “the appearance of riot and want of order.” 
With the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence behind us, the fate of the king’s statue serves as a reminder of what Washington hoped the American Revolution wouldn’t become. 
Unlike many of the statues taken down in 2020, the one of George III by the English sculptor Joseph Wilton wasn’t much of a historical relic. 
It had stood for only six years. 
At its unveiling in New York in the summer of 1770, soldiers had paraded through the city to cheers. 
“Our loyalty, firm attachment, and affection to His Majesty’s person was expressed by drinking the king’s health and a long continuance of his reign, under a discharge of 32 pieces of cannon,” wrote New York’s lieutenant governor after the ceremony. 
Read more 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.1%Jonathan Horn: 9.3%The FP: 5.8%Confirmation Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.4%Jonathan Horn: 9.3%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic21.4%This article: 23.4%Jonathan Horn: 5.9%The FP: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic23.4%This article: 8.7%Jonathan Horn: 4.3%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Jonathan Horn: 22.3%The FP: 9.5%Framing Effect10.4%This article: 8.7%Jonathan Horn: 2.2%The FP: 0.5%Loss Aversion8.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.0%Jonathan Horn: 3.3%The FP: 1.3%Optimism Bias13.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.1%Jonathan Horn: 4.3%The FP: 10.8%Negativity Bias17.1%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Jonathan Horn: 5.1%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Jonathan Horn: 2.5%The FP: 1.1%Primacy Effect9.8%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 2.5%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.9%Jonathan Horn: 5.0%The FP: 3.2%Appeal to Authority19.9%This article: 7.5%Jonathan Horn: 1.9%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.9%Jonathan Horn: 1.7%The FP: 8.9%Hasty Generalization6.9%This article: 6.9%Jonathan Horn: 1.7%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring6.9%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.0%Jonathan Horn: 3.3%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion13.0%This article: 8.7%Jonathan Horn: 2.2%The FP: 1.5%Begging the Question8.7%This article: 15.9%Jonathan Horn: 4.0%The FP: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.9%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 5.7%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 21.4%Jonathan Horn: 5.3%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal21.4%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.1%Jonathan Horn: 2.5%The FP: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.1%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 21.7%Jonathan Horn: 5.4%The FP: 2.5%Unattributed Quote21.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 2.5%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 75.4%Jonathan Horn: 29.5%The FP: 15.0%Biased Writer Voice75.4%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 0.0%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 6.9%Jonathan Horn: 1.7%The FP: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Horn: 6.1%The FP: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.6%Jonathan Horn: 0.1%The FP: 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.6%

346 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.4%attributed speech341writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageThe Editors • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 55 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Editors

0%flagged-word coverage
5 attributed words100% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Biased Writer Voice-76.5 ptsWriter: 76.5%The Editors: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-22.0 ptsWriter: 22.0%The Editors: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%The Editors: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -0.6 ptsWriter: 0.6%The Editors: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.