Common historical fallacies: Difference between revisions
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
*** but not a measurement of economic output | *** but not a measurement of economic output | ||
**** just as an office building has a value but its economic output is measured not by its value but by the sum of its rents | **** just as an office building has a value but its economic output is measured not by its value but by the sum of its rents | ||
==== logical fallacy 3: black population growth for slavery ==== | |||
* according to the decennial Census count: | |||
** only in the 1810 Census count did black population growth exceed that of non-black population growth under slavery | |||
*** this growth coincided with the introduction of the cotton gin and rapid expansion of slavery across the deep South | |||
* notably, black population growth has exceeded non-blacks following emancipation and desegregation: | |||
=== late 1700s to early 1800s manumission === | === late 1700s to early 1800s manumission === |
Revision as of 17:23, 20 February 2022
Creating Common historical fallacies taught by high school & other teachers
- teachers are frequently responsible for erroneous historical facts or interpretations
- teachers have a point of view that inescapably informs their teaching
- the best teachers "teach" not "preach"
- but even the most objectively-minded teacher has as a point of view, an underlying outlook
US History fallacies[edit | edit source]
Slavery was the basis of the American economy[edit | edit source]
logical fallacy 1: colonial slave v. overall population growth[edit | edit source]
- the growth of colonial African slavery was linear (upward but constant) until the development of the cotton gin
- up to 1800, colonial population growth was significantly higher for whites than for slaves (see chart)
- CONCLUSION: therefore increases in the slave population was not the basis of the colonial development
click EXPAND to view comparative table of colonial white and slave population growth:
Year | Free Population | increase % | Slave Population | increase % |
1610 | 350 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
1620 | 2300 | 657.1% | n/a | n/a |
1630 | 4540 | 197.4% | 60 | 30.0% |
1640 | 26003 | 572.8% | 597 | 290.2% |
1650 | 48800 | 187.7% | 1600 | 32.8% |
1660 | 72180 | 147.9% | 2920 | 78.8% |
1670 | 107365 | 148.7% | 4535 | 100.6% |
1680 | 144529 | 134.6% | 6971 | 90.5% |
1690 | 193671 | 134.0% | 16729 | 99.5% |
1700 | 223083 | 115.2% | 27817 | 86.0% |
1710 | 286834 | 128.6% | 44866 | 111.6% |
1720 | 397361 | 138.5% | 68839 | 107.7% |
1730 | 538379 | 135.5% | 91021 | 97.8% |
1740 | 755576 | 140.3% | 150024 | 103.6% |
1750 | 934380 | 123.7% | 236420 | 88.1% |
1760 | 1267794 | 135.7% | 325806 | 109.7% |
1770 | 1688278 | 133.2% | 459822 | 98.1% |
1780 | 2204980 | 130.6% | 575420 | 98.1% |
- after 1800, the slave population increased dramatically following introduction of the cotton gin
- non-black population growth exceeded that of blacks (free and slave) for all decennial (every 10 years) census counts except 1810 & 1880
logical fallacy 2: colonial per capita wealth not reliant upon slavery[edit | edit source]
- in 1774, slavery represented a significant proportion of per capita private wealth:
- 28.7% of national per capita wealth
- 31.7% of southern per capita wealth
- measured here as an asset, slavery was less than 1/3rd overall colonial wealth
- = static measurement (snapshot of current values)
- but not a measurement of economic output
- just as an office building has a value but its economic output is measured not by its value but by the sum of its rents
logical fallacy 3: black population growth for slavery[edit | edit source]
- according to the decennial Census count:
- only in the 1810 Census count did black population growth exceed that of non-black population growth under slavery
- this growth coincided with the introduction of the cotton gin and rapid expansion of slavery across the deep South
- only in the 1810 Census count did black population growth exceed that of non-black population growth under slavery
- notably, black population growth has exceeded non-blacks following emancipation and desegregation:
late 1700s to early 1800s manumission[edit | edit source]
from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Carter_III#Manumission
Manumission<br> In the years after the Revolutionary War, Virginia's legislature (having barred the slave trade in 1778) passed several laws sympathetic to freeing slaves, although it did not pass a law legalizing manumission until 1782, and throttled many petitions for wider emancipation. Numerous slaveholders in the Chesapeake Bay area freed their slaves, often in their wills (like Quaker John Pleasants) or deeds, and noted principles of equality and Revolutionary ideals as reason for their decisions. The number of free African Americans increased in the Upper South from less than one percent before the Revolution, to 10 percent by 1810. In Delaware, three-fourths of the slaves had been freed by 1810. In the decade after the act's passage, Virginians had freed 10,000 slaves, without visible social disruptions. The price of slaves reached a 20-year low as the percentage listed as "black, tithable" (i.e. slaves) fell below 40%, the lowest point in the century. However, Virginia's courts sidestepped issuing appellate decisions ratifying emancipation until 1799, and the methodology of within-life emancipation was not established.