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
George Washington didn't 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
- 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
- evidence of the story:
- 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:
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
- as included in the Declaration of Independence, the clause "that all men are created equal",
click EXPAND to read excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:
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
- the Founders set in motion the most important political concept in history and creation of the modern world:
- 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 |
Slavery was the basis of the colonial and antebellum American economy
logical fallacy 1: slave-produced exports were the driving force of the antebellum U.S. economy
- while cotton represented a significant portion of antebellum exports,
- and while cotton was the dominant slave-produced southern agricultural product,
- not all cotton was produced by slaves/ slave owners;
- 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:
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) |
Year Exports GDP Exports as % of GDP 1820 0.07 0.07 10% 1830 0.07 1.01 6.90% 1840 0.12 1.55 7.70% 1850 0.14 2.56 5.40% 1860 0.33 4.32 7.60%
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:
| 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 for about 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
- only in the 1810 Census count did black population growth under slavery exceed that of non-black population growth
- 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:
- 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% |
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:
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:
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