Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Commonly believed historical inaccuracies

2456711

Comments

  • #2


    jelem wrote: »
    if genuine not flame it was to "avoid paying TAX".
    the brits ruled and collected taxes which other european blow ins decided
    they would not.
    the "founding fathers" are in reality criminal tax dodgers whom started an armed
    attack on the powers that be to avoid their duties - bit like take up weapons against
    the irish government because you see them as corrupt thieves. todays label is
    Terrorist.

    Yeah, I've no idea what you're talking about. Are you confusing the war of independence and the civil war?


  • #2


    Notmything wrote: »
    Oh go on, enlighten me

    I'm not an expert but I think it was an issue of balance of power. There was an even balance between slave owning states and non slave owning states. But as the US expanded west and new states applied to join, each new state threatened to upset the balance of power as some wanted to be a slave state. This was the tinder that led to the war.

    So it sounds like it's about slavery*, but like most civil wars it was just a power struggle.

    There's probably more reasons, but like I said I'm no expert.

    * I mean a noble crusade to end slavery


  • #2


    patsman07 wrote: »
    I've often read that Padraig Pearse read the Proclamation "from the steps of the GPO." This always bugged me as I've walked past the building many times and there are no steps there. Images from 1916 show the same.

    That he signed or called himself "Padraig Pearse".

    The Tans were supposed to be released jailbirds is another one.


  • #2


    jelem wrote: »
    if genuine not flame it was to "avoid paying TAX".
    the brits ruled and collected taxes which other european blow ins decided
    they would not.
    the "founding fathers" are in reality criminal tax dodgers whom started an armed
    attack on the powers that be to avoid their duties - bit like take up weapons against
    the irish government because you see them as corrupt thieves. todays label is
    Terrorist.

    If you are talking about the American War of Independence I think most history books mention tax ... and no taxation without representation. The irony of slave owners rebelling in the name of freedom was remarked on at the time and subsequently.


  • #2


    I'm not an expert but I think it was an issue of balance of power. There was an even balance between slave owning states and non slave owning states. But as the US expanded west and new states applied to join, each new state threatened to upset the balance of power as some wanted to be a slave state. This was the tinder that led to the war.
    So it sounds like it's about slavery, but like most wars it was just a power struggle.
    There's probably more reasons, but like I said I'm no expert.

    I think you need to reread what you wrote ie slave state.

    Without slavery as the dividing issue there would have been no war. Any other issue would have been resolved through the federal system ie tariffs, expansion, national bank, indian question.
    It was not about power per se... it was about that power being deployed to protect, extend or contain slavery.


  • #2


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    I think you need to reread what you wrote ie slave state.

    Without slavery as the dividing issue there would have been no war.

    Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the op about this meant that the civil war was to free slaves.

    It absolutely was driven by the politics of slavery, but mostly to do with the balance of power, not some noble crusade.


  • #2


    1916 was a Sinn Fein rising.
    They had no involvement and indeed were monarchists at that time.


  • #2


    I'm not an expert but I think it was an issue of balance of power. There was an even balance between slave owning states and non slave owning states. But as the US expanded west and new states applied to join, each new state threatened to upset the balance of power as some wanted to be a slave state. This was the tinder that led to the war.

    So it sounds like it's about slavery, but like most civil wars it was just a power struggle.

    There's probably more reasons, but like I said I'm no expert.

    What this guy wrote.

    Plus slavery didn't end at the armistice, sharecropping which followed was an ersatz form of slavery.

    Check out Lucy Worsley show on it Amercian History Biggest Fibs from bbc. She explains how slavery basically still exists in the US.


  • #2


    Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the op about this meant that the civil war was to free slaves.
    It absolutely was driven by the politics of slavery, but mostly to do with the balance of power, not some noble crusade.

    It wasnt fought to end slavery but it was fought to preserve the Union / Federal government which under Republicans was pledged to contain slavery (was that not a noble goal?) ... which the South viewed as ultimately leading to slaverys eventual extinction.
    It was a struggle about whether the power of the Federal government would be deployed to protect and spread slavery or to contain and eventually extinguish it.


  • #2


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    It wasnt fought to end slavery but it was fought to preserve the Union / Federal government which under Republicans was pledged to contain slavery (was that not a noble goal?) ... which the South viewed as ultimately leading to slaverys eventual extinction.
    It was a struggle about whether the power of the Federal government would be deployed to protect and spread slavery or to contain and eventually extinguish it.

    I'd call it a noble side effect of the power struggle between the North and South. A convenient way to justify your actions, as many war victors have done throughout history. Remember Lincoln was under a lot of pressure in the early stages of that war, he needed everything justification he could get.


  • #2


    Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the op about this meant that the civil war was to free slaves.
    but the op on this topic then seems to be confused about which war he's talking about. he mentioned the civil war and then seemed to think the civil war was with the british over tax.
    so yes, he's 100% correct that the war with the british was not about slavery, as that's a different war entirely.


  • #2


    but the op on this topic then seems to be confused about which war he's talking about. he mentioned the civil war and then seemed to think the civil war was with the british over tax.
    so yes, he's 100% correct that the war with the british was not about slavery, as that's a different war entirely.

    No, you're confusing two posters as one.


  • #2


    I'd call it a noble side effect of the power struggle between the North and South. A convenient way to justify your actions, as many war victors have done throughout history. Remember Lincoln was under a lot of pressure in the early stages of that war, he needed everything justification he could get.

    He wasnt under pressure on tariffs or railroads or banks or taxes ... he was under pressure because the South seceded on the election on Northern votes alone of a President committed to contain slavery. Not for any other political issue on which there were regional disagreements.

    Slavery was the wedge between the North and South. No slavery in the South, no anti-slavery in the North... no war.
    Without slavery political compromises would have been found, coalitions across regional lines - as had been the case for previous 50 years.

    It was the ultimate cause of the war not a pretext or fig leaf for it.


  • #2


    The winners write history


  • #2


    The winners write history

    Tell that to Carthage.


  • #2


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    He wasnt under pressure on tariffs or railroads or banks or taxes ... he was under pressure because the South seceded on the election on Northern votes alone of a President committed to contain slavery. Not for any other political issue on which there were regional disagreements.

    Slavery was the wedge between the North and South. No slavery in the South, no anti-slavery in the North... no war.
    It was the ultimate cause of the war not a pretext or fig leaf for it.

    Ok, you're just debating with yourself here. My point has already been made.


  • #2


    The winners write history

    Historians write history.
    They are not always from the winning side.


  • #2


    Tim Pat Coogan's quote at the end of the Michael Collins movie where de Valera supposedly said Collins' greatness would be recorded at his expense. A quote that has been queried by numerous historians. This was Coogan's response to Mansergh about it:
    The statement involving Joe McGrath that Dr Mansergh challenges was de Valera's rejection in 1966, of a suggestion by McGrath that he become a patron of a Michael Collins Foundation, which would provide deserving students with an education. The foundation suggestion originated from Johnny Collins, Michael's brother, who felt that scholarships would be a more fitting tribute to his brother's memory than McGrath's initial proposal, which had been to erect, at his own expense, a memorial to Collins at Sam's Cross in west Cork.

    Johnny's son, the late Michael Collins, a prominent businessman and a chartered accountant, was involved in and supportive of the foundation, as were Michael's brothers, the late Col Pat Collins and Liam Collins of Clonakilty, one of Cork's leading solicitors, also deceased. I knew all three, Michael Collins since our days together in Blackrock, and I would rate them as being among the most honourable men I have ever encountered.

    Michael first, and subsequently the other two, told me that when Joe McGrath, who was dying at the time, put the foundation proposal to de Valera he replied: "I can't see my way to becoming patron of the Michael Collins Foundation. It's my considered opinion that in the fullness of time, history will record the greatness of Collins and it will be recorded at my expense". McGrath formally conveyed this response to Michael Collins in his capacity as an administrator of the foundation fund.

    Dr Mansergh now asks how can we be sure that those words are exact? If he had raised that question 15 years ago when my book was first published, I can assure him the Collins brothers would have given him his answer.

    Hearsay that has come to be taken as fact. The Michael Collins movie in general can be filed under historically inaccurate tosh. De Valera didn't want Collins killed and argued against that action being taken. RTE's John Creedon did a good documentary on it a few years back.


  • #2


    Mod: deleted a few non-history posts.

    I know this is a soft thread, but if people want to really discuss a point then it's time to start adding sources.


  • #2


    mickuhaha wrote: »
    Well most of Munster was destroyed using scorched earth tactics by the British. I would guess I am more right than wrong.
    from 'reading the irish landscape' by mitchell and ryan:

    attachment.php?attachmentid=538342&stc=1&d=1609798948


  • #2


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    It wasnt fought to end slavery but it was fought to preserve the Union / Federal government which under Republicans was pledged to contain slavery (was that not a noble goal?) ... which the South viewed as ultimately leading to slaverys eventual extinction.
    It was a struggle about whether the power of the Federal government would be deployed to protect and spread slavery or to contain and eventually extinguish it.

    The South could see what was coming down the tracks. They couched it in terms of "States' Rights", as in the right not to be forced to accept the rules of everyone else in "the club", but it was plain which rule they were worried about.

    The Emancipation Proclamation only happened in 1863, when the Civil War was already well under way.


  • #2


    No, you're confusing two posters as one.
    cheers, my mistake!


  • #2


    That De Valera was spared execution after 1916 because he was an American.

    In fact it was because De Valera and his men were marched to a separate British barracks than the GPO garrison and the other garrisons.
    General Maxwell planned to court martial and shoot not just the ringleaders but scores more and indeed a mass grave was dug. The executions went painfully slowly with the result that while most of the public initially supported the defeat of the rebels and were baying for blood it allowed time for tempers to cool and opinion to swing toward mercy while details of the heroism of the rebels began to be more widely known. Maxwell went from being a British hero for crushing a treasonous rabble to a brute killing heroic Gaels.
    Embarassed the British government called off the executions.
    In any case Maxwell is said to have asked who De Valera was and he was dismissed as unimportant. A mere maths teacher.
    Spared the glorious fate of Pearse Clarke McDonagh et al De Valera assumed the leadership of the republican prisoners and the rest is history.


  • #2


    Patrick Pearse
    P H Pearse
    Pádraig Mac Piarais

    All used by the man himself but being serious about his languages he never ever mixed them

    Somewhere along the way Pádraig Pearse became the accepted version though he never used it

    I remember a tour guide from Kilmainham Jail being interviewed on the radio and he got blasted by texters for saying Patrick as if it was too anglicised


  • #2


    Somewhat trivial compared to the above, but I remember Michael Caine telling the story (and me completely believing it at the the time)of how Mary, Queen of Scots was responsible for the origin of the word marmalade while appearing on Michael Parkinson's chatshow.

    The story goes that when Mary was ill, her maids would call out 'mam est malade' (mother is ill) and come back from the kitchen with this orange preserve. The locals saw this and assumed the preserve had the name 'mam est malade' or marmalade!

    Complete nonsense of course but sounds quite plausible to the unknowing.


  • #2


    That De Valera was spared execution after 1916 because he was an American.

    In fact it was because De Valera and his men were marched to a separate British barracks than the GPO garrison and the other garrisons.
    General Maxwell planned to court martial and shoot not just the ringleaders but scores more and indeed a mass grave was dug. The executions went painfully slowly with the result that while most of the public initially supported the defeat of the rebels and were baying for blood it allowed time for tempers to cool and opinion to swing toward mercy while details of the heroism of the rebels began to be more widely known. Maxwell went from being a British hero for crushing a treasonous rabble to a brute killing heroic Gaels.
    Embarassed the British government called off the executions.
    In any case Maxwell is said to have asked who De Valera was and he was dismissed as unimportant. A mere maths teacher.
    Spared the glorious fate of Pearse Clarke McDonagh et al De Valera assumed the leadership of the republican prisoners and the rest is history.

    I was going to post this one too! Repeated in the Little Museum of Dublin when I did a tour there a couple of years ago.


  • #2


    That many Irish people of sallow skin must descend from survivors of the Spanish Armada.

    This comes up a lot now in discussing the ethnicity results of DNA tests.


  • #2


    That all Irish records* were destroyed in the Customs House fire**

    *Not all records
    **Not even in the Customs House


  • #2


    pinkypinky wrote: »
    That many Irish people of sallow skin must descend from survivors of the Spanish Armada.

    This comes up a lot now in discussing the ethnicity results of DNA tests.

    Yeah, real cringy. I recall reading posts on ancestry's message board asking for background on Black Irish family names. This stuff takes on a life of its own.


  • #2


    ElJaguar wrote: »
    2 famous quotes

    The Voltaire quote about freedom of speech "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

    He never said it.

    Or as the joke goes

    "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the DEATH your right to misattribute it to Voltaire!!"
    - Voltaire

    "Let them eat cake" is another one. Marie Antoinette was a child when the quote began to do the rounds so she could not have said it.

    The idea that people prior to say, the 15th century, thought that the Earth was flat and you could sail over the edge, is also a myth. The Ancient Greeks had mathematically determined that the Earth is round.

    That the Polish Hussars charged at German tanks... on horseback.


Leave a Comment

Rich Text Editor. To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph. An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu. Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.