4,993
edits
Common historical fallacies: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
=== contrary evidence 1: the story is plausible === | === contrary evidence 1: the story is plausible === | ||
** whether or not apocryphal, Weems related the story to illustrate Washington's high character | ** whether or not apocryphal, Weems related the story to illustrate Washington's high character | ||
** but the story is not implausible (unlikely): | ** but the story is not implausible (unlikely):a | ||
*** Weems tells of Washington receiving a new hatchet for his sixth birthday | *** 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 hatchet would be a very valuable gift for a young boy and one that would certainly not go unused | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
** Weems did not give her name, so she remains an anonymous primary source | ** 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 | ** 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 | ||
* sources: | * sources: | ||
** https://www.nps.gov/articles/george-washington-and-the-cherry-tree.htm | ** https://www.nps.gov/articles/george-washington-and-the-cherry-tree.htm | ||
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
*** 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 | * >> to expand | ||
* < | * >>u<<Conclusion</u>: opportunity costs: | ||
** investments were recycled back into cotton at | ** investments were recycled back into cotton at | ||
** the focus on slaveholding created a dead-weight loss | ** the focus on slaveholding created a dead-weight loss | ||
| Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
** https://www.jstor.org/stable/26217427 | ** https://www.jstor.org/stable/26217427 | ||
*** https://www.jstor.org/stable/3741275 | *** https://www.jstor.org/stable/3741275 | ||
* < | * >>u<<Sidenote on farming efficiencies and sharecropping</u>: | ||
** a significant consequence of industrialization was to raise the cost of farming itself with | ** a significant consequence of industrialization was to raise the cost of farming itself with | ||
*** machinery | *** machinery | ||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
** exports were not a significant portion of the overall U.S. antebellum economy | ** 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 | ** 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 | ||
click EXPAND to view chart of US exports as portion of the economy, 1790-1860: | click EXPAND to view chart of US exports as portion of the economy, 1790-1860: | ||
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | <div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | ||
| Line 221: | Line 221: | ||
* 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 | ||
click EXPAND to view comparative table of colonial white and slave population growth: | click EXPAND to view comparative table of colonial white and slave population growth: | ||
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | <div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | ||
| Line 361: | Line 361: | ||
* notably, black population growth has exceeded non-blacks following emancipation and desegregation | * notably, black population growth has exceeded non-blacks following emancipation and desegregation | ||
** equally notable, | ** equally notable, | ||
* < | * >>u<<Conclusions</u>: | ||
** while slave and free black population grew significantly under slavery, emancipation and desegregation led to higher relative population growth for blacks | ** 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) | ||