# Historical myths? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 8, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940 "2006-06-08T19:33:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Spezza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a698b9/32.png) [@Spezza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spezza)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/101 "2006-07-03T22:13:45Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Well, yeah. By early 1944 British and American long-range bombers had reduced much of the German production capability to rubble. You can’t really disconnect both fronts. Yeah, myth. The German economy actually produced more in 1944 than in the years previous. What allied bombing did succeed in doing was destroying German transportation infrastructure sufficiently to render that production worthless. (Currently taking a unversity course on WWII. Recall reading that stocks of many essential supplies reached their height in 1944. However, the increase in stock was due solely to the fact that they could not be transported away from the factories.) As for the myths of United States Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviets during WWII, my current course states that the two most significant resources were food and trucks - not weapons. Food supplies were necessary because the bread basket of the Soviet Union was enveloped by Germany in 1941. Subsequent advances into these regions did not alleviate the food crisis because of the Soviet’s - and then German - scorched earth policy during the 1941 retreat. The trucks were useful for the Soviets only because they were mostly 4-wheel drive. These trucks were all season and could handle the extremely muddy conditions of the Eastern front during the spring and fall. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/102 "2006-07-03T22:26:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Supposedly, someone hit upon the bright idea of bombing ball bearing factories in Germany. Reason being that if there were no ball bearings, the German military machine would soon grind to a halt. During the war, the Allies bombed the crap out of the bearing factories and waited for the military to come to a halt, which didn’t happen. After the war, it was found that Germany had only one bearing factory left, and that was what had been supplying the entire war effort. The bright idea was actually not a bad idea, at all. German designs frequently used ball bearings more than the designs of other countries and there was no aspect of the German military that did not rely upon them. The German 88mm cannon, feared alike by fliers, tankers, and infantry, relied upon a huge number of bearings. However, after the first Schweinfurt raid, the Germans realized their vulnerability and by the time of the second Schweinfurt raid, they had already begun a massive effort to redesign their equipment to eliminate “excessive” reliance on bearings. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/103 "2006-07-03T22:33:16Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The bright idea was actually not a bad idea, at all. German designs frequently used ball bearings more than the designs of other countries and there was no aspect of the German military that did not rely upon them. The German 88mm cannon, feared alike by fliers, tankers, and infantry, relied upon a huge number of bearings. However, after the first Schweinfurt raid, the Germans realized their vulnerability and by the time of the second Schweinfurt raid, they had already begun a massive effort to redesign their equipment to eliminate “excessive” reliance on bearings. Didn’t mean to imply that it was a bad idea, **Tom** , after all, highly industrialized societies have a number of weak points (electronics, fuel, power generation, etc.) and if you completely wipe out one of them, it won’t be long before the they grind to a halt. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/104 "2006-07-04T10:50:33Z")
[According to this, Ben Franklin never said, “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”](http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/living/14840864.htm) > [@](#): > > Anyone who attributes that quote to Franklin is full of hops. > > The Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary in Philadelphia, which organized Franklin’s 300th birthday party this year, says it has computerized nearly everything Franklin ever wrote or was reported to have said. Yet a search for “beer” yields nothing even close. > > Besides, it’s not a thought Franklin would have glorified publicly, said Franklin scholar Blaine McCormick of Baylor University, whose update of Franklin’s famous autobiography was released last October. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/105 "2006-07-04T13:56:33Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > [According to this, Ben Franklin never said, “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”](http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/living/14840864.htm) ☹ Some historical myths I’m happy believing. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/106 "2006-07-06T23:52:04Z")
> [@Spezza](#): > > As for the myths of United States Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviets during WWII, my current course states that the two most significant resources were food and trucks - not weapons. Food supplies were necessary because the bread basket of the Soviet Union was enveloped by Germany in 1941. Subsequent advances into these regions did not alleviate the food crisis because of the Soviet’s - and then German - scorched earth policy during the 1941 retreat. The trucks were useful for the Soviets only because they were mostly 4-wheel drive. These trucks were all season and could handle the extremely muddy conditions of the Eastern front during the spring and fall. And right here is a key point. It’s been said a thousand times, amatures discuss tactics; professionals, logistics. What you’ve seen in this thread is a good example of revisionalist history in action, as people fall all over themselves to discount the U.S. contribution to anything. US/Soviet lend-lease had 2 important, nay, vital effects. It bridged the gap, giving the Soviets time to get their industrial production spun up well behind the lines, and it continued to provide absolutely essensial logistical support to the Soviet armed forces (trucks and food). No one is denying that the Soviets were the decisive force that broke that back of the \*Wehrmacht \*, they were, but those vast numbers of men would have been useless without food and supplies, and the legions of T-34s (a surperb but vastly overrated tank itself) nothing more than pillboxes if they don’t get the fuel they need to attack. Without US support, it would have taken them far longer to crush the Germans than it did, if indeed, they could have managed it at all. I think they would have-eventually-but it would have been a much, much more difficult task. Take the U.S. out of the picture all together and it becomes almost impossible (Without the U.S. there is no second front. Britain isn’t gong to invade Fortress Europe on it’s own hook. They just didn’t have the capability. Without U.S. daylight bombing to suppliment the work done by the British at night, German infrastructure is not nearly as damaged. The list goes on) Trivializing the U.S. contribution to the European theatre is a modern example of how historical myths get started. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/107 "2006-07-07T21:22:38Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > :smack: You’re right. I misread it as saying they recognized that no matter what, slavery was bound to end eventually. My fault. > > Daniel It might be more accurate to say that the war was about racism. I’ve read that the chattel slavery practiced in the south was becoming obsolete. However, the institution of slavery was the most effective way of preserving white supremacy. Every black man in the south had to have papers in order to prove that he had rights. Also, while few whites owned slaves, nearly everyone was invested in the social structure that was based in slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/108 "2006-07-07T22:30:09Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > One big myth that keeps getting repeated: > > American Indians were hunter-gatherers. > > Nope, most were farmers, until disease and genocide in the 1800s forced them to give up their lands and become hunters. Can anyone recommend a good book or series of articles on the subject? I naïvely always assumed this to be the truth until reading the contrary at this message board, in this and other threads. Oh, and my small contribution to the historical myths: William Tell (the swiss crossbow archer) not only never shot an apple on his son’s head, but it is most likely that no one with that name even lived at that time (12th-13th century Switzerland.) There are other similar stories in other European countries about a skilled archer shooting an apple. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/109 "2006-07-08T00:48:25Z")
> [@The Long Road](#): > > Between Moscow in 41, Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration and multiple other battles, the Soviets beat the living hell out of the German army. Although the Soviets won, I can’t say I agree that they “beat the living hell out of the German army.” According to Wikipedia, German military casualties for the war were 5.5 million. Soviet military casualties were [10.7 million](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country#Casualties_by_country). And I’d also note that the Battle of Moscow did not occur somewhere along the edge of the Soviet Union. Moscow was located well within the Motherland. Obviously, the Germans managed to move well into Russia. The Russians probably seem to fight better at home because they can fall back in on themselves, lengthening their opponents’ supply lines and shortening their own. And they’ve got a huge (and in my opinion, hardy) population, which allows them to absorb severe casualties. They fought a battle of endurance with the Germans, and they endured more. Obviously, they’re to be commended for that, but it seems (to me) odd to suggest that they beat the living hell out of the German army. My own contribution to this thread (it’s small, but it’s also a pet peeve): [Thomas Jefferson never said “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”](http://www.monticello.org/library/reference/quotes.html) ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/110 "2006-07-08T18:18:15Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Although the Soviets won, I can’t say I agree that they “beat the living hell out of the German army.” > > … > > They fought a battle of endurance with the Germans, and they endured more. Obviously, they’re to be commended for that, but it seems (to me) odd to suggest that they beat the living hell out of the German army. It depends on what you mean by “beat the living hell out of”. They paid an egregious price, it’s true, but by the time the Soviets had done with it, the Wehrmacht was a ragged, bloody mess, and the Russkies could \*still \*keep coming back for more. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/111 "2006-07-08T18:51:03Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > I think another myth was that Europeans were crappy farmers but I don’t think that’s very fair. I don’t believe that it was Europeans that were said to be crappy farmers, but rather the pilgrims were not prepared for the venture they embarked on. One sign of this was that they arrived at the wrong time of the year to begin farming. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/112 "2006-07-08T23:01:04Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Although the Soviets won, I can’t say I agree that they “beat the living hell out of the German army.” > > According to Wikipedia, German military casualties for the war were 5.5 million. Soviet military casualties were [10.7 million](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country#Casualties_by_country). > > And I’d also note that the Battle of Moscow did not occur somewhere along the edge of the Soviet Union. Moscow was located well within the Motherland. Obviously, the Germans managed to move well into Russia. > > The Russians probably seem to fight better at home because they can fall back in on themselves, lengthening their opponents’ supply lines and shortening their own. And they’ve got a huge (and in my opinion, hardy) population, which allows them to absorb severe casualties. > > They fought a battle of endurance with the Germans, and they endured more. Obviously, they’re to be commended for that, but it seems (to me) odd to suggest that they beat the living hell out of the German army. The Soviets were almost completely unprepared for war. Stalin had been purging the officer corps of non-Communists, and believed that he would be safe from a German attack until Great Britain capitulated. When he heard that Hitler had invaded, he had a breakdown and gave no orders for three days. Also, the German offensive was brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![Mapache](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@Mapache](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mapache)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2006, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/113 "2006-07-09T00:24:52Z")
> [@Arnold Winkelried](#): > > Can anyone recommend a good book or series of articles on the subject? I naïvely always assumed this to be the truth until reading the contrary at this message board, in this and other threads. 1491 by Charles Mann.[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140004006X/qid=1152404330/sr=2-1/ref=pd\_bbs\_b\_2\_1/002-6207032-5076830?s=books&v=glance&n=283155](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140004006X/qid=1152404330/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-6207032-5076830?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) Fascinating history of the Americas before Columbus, with a lot of information on very large civilizations most people never heard of. Millions of Indians living in the Amazon rain forest, building enormous raised “islands” to grow crops on?! Hundreds of Indian towns and cities along the Mississippi?! ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2006, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/114 "2006-07-09T01:23:52Z")
> [@Will Repair](#): > > NRP had a program about Pearl Harbor and a myth of the news reports. Seems that the story started about a dance program that was interrupted with a report of the attack. To were everyone (alive then) remembers the interruption when in fact it never occured. I just don’t remember the details. I’ve 'net searched but can’t find anything. Anyone? Anyone? Remember shmember. We’ve got the [disks](http://www.umkc.edu/lib/spec-col/ww2/PearlHarbor/radio.htm)! I don’t notice any dance music…not quite the thing that you’d expect to be on the air at 4:00 Sunday afternoon, anyway. The one clip I can remember hearing was breaking in on a football game. Not generally known is that Pearl Harbor also interrupted [television](http://www.earlytelevision.org/images/schedule-dec11941.jpg). Ray Forrest, NBC’s one TV announcer, remembered having to break in on the afternoon movie to give the bad news. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2006, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/115 "2006-07-09T01:47:37Z")
> [@Beware of Doug](#): > > Remember shmember. We’ve got the [disks](http://www.umkc.edu/lib/spec-col/ww2/PearlHarbor/radio.htm)! > > I don’t notice any dance music…not quite the thing that you’d expect to be on the air at 4:00 Sunday afternoon, anyway. The one clip I can remember hearing was breaking in on a football game. > > Not generally known is that Pearl Harbor also interrupted [television](http://www.earlytelevision.org/images/schedule-dec11941.jpg). Ray Forrest, NBC’s one TV announcer, remembered having to break in on the afternoon movie to give the bad news. I think what happened was that indeed a program of dance music was being broadcast, but by pure coincidence it ended normally and then the news flash interrupted the \*\*following \*\* broadcast. > **[Radio Days - Pearl Harbor](http://www.otr.com/r-a-i-new_pearl.shtml)** > > In 1938 Hitler was threatening to invade Czechoslovakia and start World War II. > [@](#): > > The NBC Red network was broadcasting Sammy Kaye’s Sunday Serenade with Sammy and his Orchestra, Tommy Ryan, Alan Foster, and the Three Kaydettes. The day’s broadcast was just about finished and next up was the rather bland University of Chicago Round Table. The topic was “Canada: A Neighbor at War.” Canada, part of the British Empire, had declared war on Germany soon after England. While we supplied material to the British, Canada was supplying an even more precious commodity - men. > > Just as the NBC network program changeover was to take place, it upcut the start of the Round Table with its first bulletin on the Pearl Harbor bombing at 2:29:50 pm read by NBC news writer Robert Eisenbach. At the same time, on the Blue Network, NBC interrupted its Great Plays broadcast of “The Inspector General” with the same bulletin. > > Meanwhile, over at CBS where the only regularly scheduled news broadcast on Sundays was about to begin, things were in a disarray as the United Press wire news flash flowed in about the bombing. The 2:30 P.M. program was The World Today. Normally, this program would have gone on the air to report current world events. But this day, they began almost immediately with the bulletin by announcer John Daly of Pearl Harbor being bombed. CBS continued with additional commentary on the impact of this event. But NBC continued its regular programming. That CBS’ regular program was news-related offered it a better opportunity to give broader coverage. There is also the possibility that memories were affected by the fake musical program that was “interrupted” by the “Martian invasion” on Orson Welles _War of the Worlds_ that was broadcast in the previous decade ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2006, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/116 "2006-07-09T02:27:24Z")
Wow. Great cite, **GIGO**. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/117 "2006-07-20T22:35:57Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > And while the Soviet tanks were clearly some of the best in the world during WWII (much better than the US "Ronsons… You’ve hit upon another big myth, in the process of denouncing another. The legend of the T34 started upon its initial deployment in 1941. At the time, it was quite a capable tank - the overall best on the battlefield by most standards. But the technology and development of tanks advanced amazingly quickly through the war, and by 1943, it was just another target. It was no longer clearly superior to its opposition. Between those periods, Germany developed a lot of weapons specifically designed to counter the T-34, and hence it became quite dangerous to crew one. The Sherman was developed around the same time, but a little later. However, it did not see deployment until 1943 (it may have seen limited deployment in 1942), and it didn’t get deployed in the European theater until mid-1944. So, while it was superior to German tanks of 1941, by the time it became deployed, like the T-34, it faced an arsenal of weapons designed to defeat it, and so, while the T-34 had a short period of dominance, the Sherman never did. As a result, the popular perception is that Shermans are regarded as crappy, while T-34s are superb. The “Ronson” part, by the way, was corrected in later models. The reality is that the Sherman was well suited, even in 1944, for its role. This is something I wrote in another thread long ago: "The Sherman gets a terrible reputation in the common perception of history because it’s being judged by arbitrary standards. The Sherman was an excellent tank - especially considering it’s development was mostly in 1941. Because it couldn’t go toe to toe with heavy tanks designed to be tank destroyers, it was maligned unfairly. The Sherman was far more likely to face antitank guns and infantry than any German tank, and it was excellent at dispatching of soft targets. Furthermore, when it did meet a German tank, it was far more likely to be a stug 3 or pz 4 than a tiger or panther, either of which the Sherman was quite capable of killing. Because people just sort of skim over history, or perhaps wargame fantasy scenarios with lots of German heavy tanks, people tend to think the Sherman was a bad tank. But it was great. It was extremely reliable - far more than the T34. If you ever look closely at pictures of T34s, they often have extra transmissions strapped to the hull because they were so prone to breaking them, for example. The high velocity 76mm gun later mounted to shermans was more effective than the T34/85s 85mm gun, and even the earlier 75mm gun was quite capable. Shermans had good and well sloped armor for the times it was deisgned in, and later modifications gave it very formidable armor even by '45, carried great armament for it’s role - 3 MGs, quite a bit of ammo, and a very capable 75mm gun, and later an even more capable 76mm gun. It could drive hundreds of miles in mad dashes against France - a scenario in which almost every other tank would never have made to the same degree - and was an efficient killer of it’s primary targets and biggest threats: infantry and AT guns. And it was quite capable at taking on most German tanks, the fantasy that Germany had assloads of tigers and panthers aside." The Sherman was generally superior to the T-34, the biggest drawback being that it had too high a profile comparison. But for what it’s worth, lend-lease Shermans were given to the best tank units in the Soviet army, because the Soviets viewed them as superior. That should really put some perspective on it. > [@Spezza](#): > > Yeah, myth. The German economy actually produced more in 1944 than in the years previous. This has to be taken into perspective. One thing that most people don’t know is that Germany wasn’t geared for a full war-time economy until, IIRC, late 1942. This was because, at the outset, none of the wars Germany engaged in were expected to be long, protracted, total wars. Russia was expected to fall quickly just as France did. And so the production going up through 1944 doesn’t necesarily mean that strategic bombing was ineffective, because the proper comparison would be the production of 1944 compared to the production with a hypothetical unbombed '44, rather than the production compared to previous years without an economy geared up for total war. > [@The Long Road](#): > > Those huge numbers of 88s shooting at Allied bombers could have easily been shooting holes in Russian tanks if not defending German cities. At least one of the results from the bombing campaign This is very true. It’s been said that the damage done by trategic bombing pre-transport and oil campaign was mostly in resources tied up to stop it than the actual damage inflicted by the bombing. The planes kept in the west were sorely needed in the east, along with anti-aircraft guns, and the men used to crew them, as well as the gas supply used, and the engineering and research resources used to counter strategic bombing. The industrial bombing campaigns were largely ineffective for their cost, but the resources they tied up put Germany in a bind. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Are you sure about that last sentence? I thought the southern states were all about preserving slavery in perpetuity. > > Daniel Take it for what it’s worth, but the constitution of the confederacy banned the importation of slaves. I’ve read that there was a movement among southern politicians to gradually change the economic conditions of the south to move away from a slave-dependent economy over time. It’s just that they couldn’t suddenly stop slavery on a dime without leading to complete economic collapse. Personally, I think the idea that even educated people have that the war was only, or almost entirely, about slavery is naive. The war was, in some ways, distasteful - invading a country that wished to be left alone to impose your will on them isn’t nearly as romantic as “We went to free the slaves! Yay us!”. Lincoln said he would’ve freed no slaves if it meant winning/ending the war - how can the war possibly be only about slavery when those executing it would’ve settled for not ending it? My 8th grade social studies teacher had a really great way of explaining it, I only wish I remembered it better. There was a political divide amongst the states about which powers would be allocated to the federal government, and which to the states. This was a big, core issue to our country at the time. The fact that it’s not an issue now, because we all know the federal government is our daddy, is largely a result of the outcome of the civil war. There was tension between the two factions for decades leading up to the civil war. We came close to secession on several different issues preceeding the civil war - and I wish I could remember them. One involved a national bank, IIRC, and others were about admitting states, and other issues. It’s just that when finally we got to slavery, which was perhaps the dozenth issue of contention that the south either compromised or back down on, it was only where they effectively couldn’t without leading to economic collapse. And so the slavery issue was the trigger to start the war. But to say that it was the only or primary cause is ignoring the fact that the tension and disagreement was there for decades, and was probably going to lead to political seperation at some point. Slavery just happened to be the issue that couldn’t come to a compromise. That doesn’t mean that the tension was started with slavery, or was all about it, or that secession was only about it, as romantic as it is to think so. To make an analogy - say there was a bad marriage with a lot of tension, constant bickering. You’ve grudgingly compromised on issues, but neither of you are happy with it or the situation. Then someone does something - say, buying a big ticket item you didn’t approve of, and that was the last straw with you, and so you push for a divorce. Does that mean the divorce was all about that big ticket item? No, it was the trigger that finally resulted in that action after years of tension and unresolved differences. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/118 "2006-07-20T23:05:15Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > The war was, in some ways, distasteful - invading a country that wished to be left alone to impose your will on them isn’t nearly as romantic as “We went to free the slaves! Yay us!”. Lincoln said he would’ve freed no slaves if it meant winning/ending the war - how can the war possibly be only about slavery when those executing it would’ve settled for not ending it? And yet, the early rhetoric, recruitment posters, and declarations of resolve in the North were all aimed at “preserving the Union” well into 1863 with only a handful of Abolitionists tugging at Lincoln’s coat and trying to “remind” him about the slavery issue. On the other hand, the declarations of secession were very much focussed on the issue of slavery, even though there was no general call in the North to end it. > [@](#): > > . . . it was only where they effectively couldn’t without leading to economic collapse. And so the slavery issue was the trigger to start the war. But to say that it was the only or primary cause is ignoring the fact that the tension and disagreement was there for decades, and was probably going to lead to political seperation at some point. Slavery just happened to be the issue that couldn’t come to a compromise. That doesn’t mean that the tension was started with slavery, or was all about it, or that secession was only about it, as romantic as it is to think so. There was no immediate threat to slavery. There were no proposals to end it. The only issue was whether the South would be able to extend slavery into new states and so keep their control of Congress, but even that would have taken decades to bring to a head if they had not forced the issue using secession. As to other issues, the first talk of secession occurred when New England discussed the possibility of opting out of “Mr. Madison’s War” and the South united to condemn the “treasonous” Hartford Convention. Later fights over the Federal bank and similar issues were very much driven by the economies of the various regions and whether or not they were tied directly to slavery. The war was certainly not fought to end slavery, but it was definitely begun to preserve slavery (from a distant threat that had no immediacy). ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/119 "2006-07-21T05:17:45Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Take it for what it’s worth, but the constitution of the confederacy banned the importation of slaves. I’ve read that there was a movement among southern politicians to gradually change the economic conditions of the south to move away from a slave-dependent economy over time. It’s just that they couldn’t suddenly stop slavery on a dime without leading to complete economic collapse. > > Personally, I think the idea that even educated people have that the war was only, or almost entirely, about slavery is naive. The war was, in some ways, distasteful - invading a country that wished to be left alone to impose your will on them isn’t nearly as romantic as “We went to free the slaves! Yay us!”. Lincoln said he would’ve freed no slaves if it meant winning/ending the war - how can the war possibly be only about slavery when those executing it would’ve settled for not ending it? It’s a long thread, so I’m sure you missed it. Lincoln said he would have kept slvaery in the slave states to preserve the union. He never said he would allow it to spread to the territories. Eventually, all the western territories would be admitted as free states, and slavery would be confined to a corner of the country, without the 1:1 balance in the Senate to protect it. The southern politicians were not fools. This was as obvious to them as it is to us. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940/120 "2006-07-22T22:04:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > There is also the possibility that memories were affected by the fake musical program that was “interrupted” by the “Martian invasion” on Orson Welles _War of the Worlds_ that was broadcast in the previous decade FWIW, my sixth grade history teacher told us (in 1970) that when the news reports of Pearl Harbor first broke, many people wondered out loud whether it was “another Orson Welles thing”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths/359940.md?page=7)