Common historical fallacies

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: general

George Washington did not cut down a cherry tree

• that Washington cut down a cherry tree and, when confronted about it by his father, replied, "I cannot tell a lie" has been considered a fabrication
• Parson Weems told the story in the 5th edition of his "The Life of Washington" (1806)
  • long considered apocryphal (a made up story to make a valid point), there is no evidence that Washington ''did not'' cut down the cherry tree

contrary evidence 1: the story is plausible

• • whether or not apocryphal, Weems related the story to illustrate Washington's high character
  • but the story is not implausible (unlikely):
    • Weems tells of Washington receiving a new hatchet for his sixth birthday
    • a hatchet would be a very valuable gift for a young boy and one that would certainly not go unused
    • a six-year old could plausibly chop down a small Cherry tree

contrary evidence 2: primary source witness to the event

• Weems was told the story by an elderly woman who had been friends with the family
  • it is, therefore, from a primary source (a witness)
  • Weems did not give her name, so she remains an anonymous primary source
  • since it appeared in the 5th edition, Weems was likely to have heard from many people who wanted to add to his biography of Washington
• Conclusion: this source is as valid as many others that are used in the writing of history, so it is not only not contestably false but arguably true
• sources:
  • https://www.nps.gov/articles/george-washington-and-the-cherry-tree.htm

The Declaration's "All men are created equal" only applied to white males

• the phrase "all men" logically refers to "all people" because:
  • as included in the Declaration of Independence, the clause "that all men are created equal",
    • was a logical element designed to justify self-government and the American dissolution its ties to Britain;
    • and thereby was directed at the King of England in order to deny divine rule;
      • if "all men are created equal" and "Governments are instituted among Men," then,
      • logically, a king is just a man, born the same as any other man or woman ("Men"), as monarchs can be females, as well as males, as well as of any race;
      • thereby even a king, being born equal to all "Men," governs at the will of the people;
      • thus negating the legitimacy of "divine rule" by which the King of England (and all monarchs) justified his rule

click EXPAND to read excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:

Expand

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,   That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

• with that primary purpose, the statement of equality of "all men are created equal" does, in fact, mean what it says
  • which does, in fact, create a hypocrisy of its political and legal application to white males
• however, having stated "that all men are created equal" is a "self-evident truth", then
  • the Founders set in motion the most important political concept in history and creation of the modern world:
    • that all people are created equal
• its application across US history can be seen in the following events:

1820s-30s	Jacksonian Revolution	expansion of equality and political participation to all free white males, not just property owners
1820s-50s	Abolition Movement	promotion of and actual expansion of equality and political participation to free black males in northern states
1860s-70s	Reconstruction	Constitutional amendments 13-15 to abolish slavery, give citizenship to former slaves, and protect the right of black males to vote
1919	19th Amendment	Constitutional amendment to secure the right to vote for women (and thus the right to full political participation)
1950s	Desegregation	Supreme Court annulment of segregation and positive Federal actions on protecting equal rights for all races

US History fallacies: slavery

Slavery was the basis of the colonial and antebellum American economy

• here we must distinguish between slave and free economies, generally North and South
• modern historians have argued that slavery was the basis for the entire US economy
• this entry will look into evidence for and against that claim

background notes on colonial slavery

• by 1790, Virginia and Maryland had by far the highest slave populations (w/ North Carolina following)
  • slavery in the Upper South was focused on tobacco planting and processing
  • however, with the advent of mass cotton production, demand for slaves grew in the deep South
    • 500,000-800,000 slaves were sold from the Upper to the Lower southern states
      • note that this movement of people constituted the largest forced migration in U.S. history
      • In the book, "Uncle Tom's Cabin," Harriett Beecher Stowe called it "to be sold down the river"
  • this expansion was significant in western portions of the South, principally in the Mississippi River valley that was part of the Louisiana Purchase
    • where lands were fertile, available and inexpensive
  • as cotton production grew, the southern economy became focused on the slave system that sustained it
    • not all slaves produced cotton (about 56% of slaves worked on cotton plantations by 1860)
      • but most of those who did not produce cotton worked to support the cotton economy
      • as did poor whites
    • note that by 1850 95% of the cotton crop was with by slave-labor
      • (see https://www.jstor.org/stable/40056471 fn 1)
• sources:
  • http://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/ushistory/chapter/the-economics-of-cotton/
  • https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/167224
  • https://reason.com/2018/07/19/slavery-did-not-make-america-r/
  • https://networks.h-net.org/node/11465/discussions/4297558/poor-whites-antebellum-us-south-topical-guide

fallacy: large cotton plantations were more profitable than other economic activities

• cotton created enormous wealth for southern plantation owners (which was severely unequal across free whites)
• however, historians estimate from 4-10% profits on cotton farming
  • for example, one small farmer who owned several slaves was able to achieve 10.6% rate of return on his cotton crop and slave/hired labor in 1860
    • see J. William Harris (1990) https://www.jstor.org/stable/3743181
• >> to expand
• Conclusion: opportunity costs:
  • investments were recycled back into cotton at
  • the focus on slaveholding created a dead-weight loss
    • << to expand/ explain

fallacy: slave labor was more efficient than free labor

• historians Fogel and Engerman argued that the "gang system" of large groups of slaves working in conjunction was responsible for increased cotton harvest efficiencies
  • economists Olmstead and Rhode (2008) point out that
    • plantation owners managed and recorded picking per slave or free worker, not as groups
    • if the "gang system" was more efficient, we would expect its more widespread use, but evidence does not indicate it
    • furthermore, harvesting efficiencies peaked and flattened around 1850, despite increase in plantation sizes and its geographic spread
    • per worker "picking rates" increased and did not decrease following the Civil War and emancipation
    • the economist tracked picking rates per cotton variety and found a distinct advantage in certain varieties
  • economist Robert A. Calvert (1970) reported significantly higher picking rates in post-Civil War, even before introduction of mechanization in the late 1880s
    • see https://www.jstor.org/stable/30236597
• Olmstead and Rhode argue that increased cotton harvesting efficiencies in to the late antebellum period were the result of new cotton varieties:
  • planters constantly experimented with different varieties, seeking higher yields, pest resistance and ease of harvest
  • implications of new varieties:
    • prior to their introduction, the extend of planting was limited to harvest labor capabilities
      • i.e., harvesting was the constraint upon production (limited its extent)
    • the new cottonseed varieties allowed for expansion of those harvesting capabilities
      • as the cost of their seeds rose, which further gave advantage to large plantations
• the implication is that the supremacy of the slave plantation was not due to labor efficiency but to allocation of assets and investment instead focused on large plantations
  • as yeoman farmers moved west, they built cotton farms, especially in Texas
  • however, they were quickly followed by large planters who bought the best land, making it unavailable to small farmers
  • advantages of slave labor were therefore derived of scale and not efficiencies in scale
• see
  • https://www.jstor.org/stable/40056471
  • https://www.jstor.org/stable/26217427
    • https://www.jstor.org/stable/3741275
• Sidenote on farming efficiencies and sharecropping:
  • a significant consequence of industrialization was to raise the cost of farming itself with
    • machinery
    • fertilizers
    • specialized seeds
  • these costs further entrenched former slaves in the sharecropper system
  • see Mauldin (2017)

fallacy: slave-produced exports were the driving force of the entire antebellum U.S. economy

• while cotton represented a significant portion of antebellum exports,
• and while cotton was the dominant slave-produced southern agricultural product,
  • exports were not a significant portion of the overall U.S. antebellum economy
  • production and exports of cotton increased significantly after the Civil War and emancipation
• Conclusion: slavery was not the "driving force" or basis of the slavery-era American economy

click EXPAND to view chart of US exports as portion of the economy, 1790-1860:

Expand

MERCHANDISE IMPORTS, EXPORTS, AND TRADE BALANCE (billions of dollars):

Year	Value of Exports ($bn)	Est. GDP ($bn)	Exports as % of GDP	Cotton % of exports	Cotton % of GDP
1820	0.07	0.07	10%	40.0 % (est)	4.0%
1830	0.07	1.01	6.90%	(no data)
1840	0.12	1.55	7.70%	(no data)
1850	0.14	2.56	5.40%	53.4%	2.9%
1860	0.33	4.32	7.60%	(no data)

• Note that about75% of total cotton production was exported

Enslaved populations in the Thirteen Colonies in 1770.[1]

Evolution of the enslaved population of the United States as a percentage of the population of each state, 1790–1860

logical fallacy 2: colonial period slave v. overall population growth

• we can measure the relative importance of slavery, as well as its expansion, by studying slave population numbers and growth
• 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:

Expand

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 3: colonial per capita wealth not reliant upon slavery

• 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 4: black population growth higher without slavery

• according to the decennial Census count:
  • only in the 1810 Census count did black population growth under slavery exceed that of non-black population growth
    • 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
  • equally notable,
• Conclusions:
  • while slave and free black population grew significantly under slavery, emancipation and desegregation led to higher relative population growth for blacks
  • segregation inhibited black population growth, thus racial discrimination is not conducive of population growth (and we can infer from that economic activity)

click on EXPAND to view chart of comparative population growth 1790-1990:

Expand

• Census counts marking higher black population growth are in bold
  • note that the lowest population growth counts occur following periods of war or during the Depression (1870, 1920, 1940)
  • the data also show that lower population growth for blacks occurred following segregation

Year	non-Black population	Growth	Black population	Growth
1990	218,723,813.00	9.3%	29,986,060.00	13.2%
1980	200,050,780.00	10.8%	26,495,025.00	17.3%
1970	180,631,637.00	12.6%	22,580,289.00	19.7%
1960	160,451,344.00	18.3%	18,871,831.00	25.5%
1950	135,655,075.00	14.2%	15,042,286.00	16.9%
1940	118,803,757.00	7.1%	12,865,518.00	8.2%
1930	110,883,903.00	16.4%	11,891,143.00	13.6%
1920	95,247,489.00	16.0%	10,463,131.00	6.5%
1910	82,144,503.00	22.3%	9,827,763.00	11.2%
1900	67,160,581.00	21.1%	8,833,994.00	18.0%
1890	55,459,038.00	27.3%	7,488,676.00	13.8%
1880	43,574,990.00	29.4%	6,580,793.00	34.9%
1870	33,678,362.00	24.7%	4,880,009.00	9.9%
1860	27,001,491.00	38.1%	4,441,830.00	22.1%
1850	19,553,068.00	37.8%	3,638,808.00	26.6%
1840	14,189,705.00	34.7%	2,873,648.00	23.4%
1830	10,532,060.00	33.9%	2,328,642.00	31.4%
1820	7,866,797.00	34.2%	1,771,656.00	28.6%
1810	5,862,073.00	36.1%	1,377,808.00	37.5%
1800	4,306,446.00	35.8%	1,002,037.00	32.3%
1790	3,172,006.00		757,208.00	19.3%

Slavery was not profitable

• in the early to mid 20th century, Confederacy apologists and "Lost Cause" historians argued that slavery was not profitable and had stagnated by the time of the Civil War
  • these historians argued that, as a result its unprofitability and inefficiency, slavery as an institution would have died off on its own in the American South
  • and that more profitable and efficient uses of labor and capital would replace slavery

problem with contrary evidence 1: Southern wealth was tied to land and slaves

• the principal source of the wealth of the slave South was due to land and slave speculation
  • which drove up prices and thus values
  • as a result,

contrary evidence 1: slavery was profitable

=== Slavery

Colonial and early Republic southern white slave owners & manumission

Fallacy no. 1: white slave owners did not think the institution was wrong

• while there was extensive racism and expansion of slavery, southern whites were not unaware of the evils of the institution
• slave-owner Thomas Jefferson famously emancipated his slaves only after his death
  • (which was a common practice)
  • however, Jefferson recognized that slavery was wrong
    • and that the "wrath" of God would punish those who violated the "liberties of the nation", which he believed should include those of slaves to be freed ("total emancipation")

click EXPAND to read passage by Jefferson on liberty, slavery and emancipation from the Notes on the State of Virginia, 1790:

Expand

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God  That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?  Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep for ever; that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events; that it may be come probable by supernatural interference!  The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.  But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil.  We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one=s mind.  I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution.  The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.
- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII

Fallacy no. 2: white slave owners did not free their slaves

• slave owners did free slaves and sometimes all of their slaves, as did Virginia plantation owner Robert Carter III

click EXPAND to read the Wikipedia entry on Robert Carter III's manumission (freeing) of his slaves:

Expand

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.

• from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Carter_III#Manumission