Common historical fallacies: Difference between revisions - A+ Club Lesson Planner & Study Guide

Line 6:

** but even the most objectively-minded teacher has as a point of view, an underlying outlook

== George Washington did not cut down a cherry ~~treae~~ ==

== 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??

* 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 <nowiki>''did not''</nowiki> cut down the cherry tree

** long considered apocryphal (a made up story to make a valid point), there is no evidence that Washington <nowiki>''did not''</nowiki> 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??:a

** 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

Line 18:

=== 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??

** 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

* >~~>u<<~~Conclusion</u>: 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

* <u>Conclusion</u>: 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

Line 42:

*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_and_Resolves_of_the_First_Continental_Congress

*** https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp

>>/div<<

</div>

* 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",

Line 48:

*** 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;

**** 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

**** 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:

Line 56:

<pre>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.</pre>

-------------------------------------------------------------------

>>/div<<

</div>

* 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

Line 72:

| 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??

| 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

Line 82:

=== Slavery was the basis of the colonial, early Republic, and antebellum American economy ===

* periods:

** colonial,1609-1775 ?or to the end of the Revolution, 1781??

** colonial,1609-1775 (or to the end of the Revolution, 1781)

** early Republic, 1775-1815

** antebelleum ?"before the war??"??, 1815-1861 ?start of the Civil War??

** antebelleum ("before the war)"), 1815-1861 (start of the Civil War)

* 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 colonial and antebellum US economy

Line 90:

==== background notes on colonial and antebellum slavery ====

* by 1790, Virginia and Maryland had by far the highest slave populations ?w/ North Carolina following??

* 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

*** into the late 1700s, African slavery replaced indentured servitude ?white immigrants who worked for ocean passage for 5 to 10 years??

*** into the late 1700s, African slavery replaced indentured servitude (white immigrants who worked for ocean passage for 5 to 10 years)

** 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

Line 100:

*** 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??

*** 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

*** by 1850 95% of the cotton crop was produced with slave-labor

**** ?see https://www.jstor.org/stable/40056471 fn 1??

**** (see https://www.jstor.org/stable/40056471 fn 1)

* sources:

** http://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/ushistory/chapter/the-economics-of-cotton/

Line 113:

==== 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??

* 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??<ref>Harris, J. William. “The Organization of Work on a Yeoman Slaveholder’s Farm.” ''Agricultural History'', vol. 64, no. 1, Agricultural History Society, 1990, pp. 39–52, <nowiki>http://www.jstor.org/stable/3743181</nowiki>.</ref> https://www.jstor.org/stable/3743181

*** see J. William Harris (1990)<ref>Harris, J. William. “The Organization of Work on a Yeoman Slaveholder’s Farm.” ''Agricultural History'', vol. 64, no. 1, Agricultural History Society, 1990, pp. 39–52, <nowiki>http://www.jstor.org/stable/3743181</nowiki>.</ref> https://www.jstor.org/stable/3743181

* >> to expand

* >~~>u<<~~Conclusion</u>: opportunity costs:

* <u>Conclusion</u>: opportunity costs:

** investments were recycled back into cotton at

** the focus on slaveholding created a dead-weight loss

Line 126:

* 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??<ref>Olmstead, Alan L., and Paul W. Rhode. “Biological Innovation and Productivity Growth in the Antebellum Cotton Economy.” ''The Journal of Economic History'', vol. 68, no. 4, [Economic History Association, Cambridge University Press], 2008, pp. 1123–71, <nowiki>http://www.jstor.org/stable/40056471</nowiki>.</ref> point out that

** economists Olmstead and Rhode (2008)<ref>Olmstead, Alan L., and Paul W. Rhode. “Biological Innovation and Productivity Growth in the Antebellum Cotton Economy.” ''The Journal of Economic History'', vol. 68, no. 4, [Economic History Association, Cambridge University Press], 2008, pp. 1123–71, <nowiki>http://www.jstor.org/stable/40056471</nowiki>.</ref> 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

Line 132:

*** 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??<ref>Calvert, Robert A. “Nineteenth-Century Farmers, Cotton, and Prosperity.” ''The Southwestern Historical Quarterly'', vol. 73, no. 4, Texas State Historical Association, 1970, pp. 509–38, <nowiki>http://www.jstor.org/stable/30236597</nowiki>.</ref> reported significantly higher picking rates in post-Civil War, even before introduction of mechanization in the late 1880s

** economist Robert A. Calvert (1970)<ref>Calvert, Robert A. “Nineteenth-Century Farmers, Cotton, and Prosperity.” ''The Southwestern Historical Quarterly'', vol. 73, no. 4, Texas State Historical Association, 1970, pp. 509–38, <nowiki>http://www.jstor.org/stable/30236597</nowiki>.</ref> 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:

Line 138:

** 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??

**** 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

Line 149:

** https://www.jstor.org/stable/26217427

*** https://www.jstor.org/stable/3741275

* >~~>u<<~~Sidenote on farming efficiencies and sharecropping</u>:

* <u>Sidenote on farming efficiencies and sharecropping</u>:

** a significant consequence of industrialization was to raise the cost of farming itself with

*** machinery

Line 155:

*** specialized seeds

** these costs further entrenched former slaves in the sharecropper system

** see Mauldin ?2017??<ref>MAULDIN, ERIN STEWART. “Freedom, Economic Autonomy, and Ecological Change in the Cotton South, 1865–1880.” ''Journal of the Civil War Era'', vol. 7, no. 3, University of North Carolina Press, 2017, pp. 401–24, <nowiki>https://www.jstor.org/stable/26381451</nowiki>.</ref>

** see Mauldin (2017)<ref>MAULDIN, ERIN STEWART. “Freedom, Economic Autonomy, and Ecological Change in the Cotton South, 1865–1880.” ''Journal of the Civil War Era'', vol. 7, no. 3, University of North Carolina Press, 2017, pp. 401–24, <nowiki>https://www.jstor.org/stable/26381451</nowiki>.</ref>

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

Line 162:

** 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

*>~~>u<<~~Conclusion</u>: slavery was not the "driving force" or basis of the slavery-era American economy

*<u>Conclusion</u>: 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:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

MERCHANDISE IMPORTS, EXPORTS, AND TRADE BALANCE ?billions of dollars??:

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

{| class="wikitable"

|Year

|Value of Exports ?$bn??

|Value of Exports ($bn)

|Est. GDP ?$bn??

|Est. GDP ($bn)

|Exports as % of GDP

|Cotton % of exports

Line 179:

|0.07

|10%

|40.0 % ?est??

|40.0 % (est)

|4.0%

|-

Line 186:

|1.01

|6.90%

|?no data??

|(no data)

|

|-

Line 193:

|1.55

|7.70%

|?no data??

|(no data)

|

|-

Line 207:

|4.32

|7.60%

|?no data??

|(no data)

|

|}

* Note that about75% of total cotton production was exported

-------------------------------------------------------------------

>>/div<<

</div>

[[File:Slavery in the 13 colonies.jpg|thumb|Enslaved populations in the Thirteen Colonies in 1770.[1]]]

Line 219:

==== 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

* 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??

** up to 1800, colonial population growth was significantly higher for whites than for slaves (see chart)

* >~~>u<<~~CONCLUSION</U>: therefore increases in the slave population was not the basis of the colonial development

* <u>CONCLUSION</U>: 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:

Line 342:

* 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

* non-black population growth exceeded that of blacks (free and slave) for all decennial (every 10 years) census counts except 1810 & 1880

-------------------------------------------------------------------

>>/div<<

</div>

==== logical fallacy 3: colonial per capita wealth not reliant upon slavery ====

Line 351:

** 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??

*** = ''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

Line 361:

* notably, black population growth has exceeded non-blacks following emancipation and desegregation

** equally notable,

* >~~>u<<~~Conclusions</u>:

* <u>Conclusions</u>:

** 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??

** 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:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

* 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??

** 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

Line 505:

|}

-------------------------------------------------------------------

>>/div<<

</div>

=== Slavery was not profitable ===

Line 533:

* 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??

** (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"??

*** 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:

Line 542:

- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII

-------------------------------------------------------------------

>>/div<<

</div>

==== 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:

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------

<pre>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.</pre>

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.</pre>

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------

>>/div<<

</div>