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
* >>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:  
* >>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>:  
* >>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
*>>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
* >>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>:  
* >>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)