10 myths about US history

[eagle7-31]

MSN

goes against what some have been trying to peddle here. Not vouching for every point made but they are mostly on target.

 

[rightwinger]

Very true for the most part

The Wild West was not so wild
Mostly just farmers and ranchers trying to survive

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

MSN

goes against what some have been trying to peddle here. Not vouching for every point made but they are mostly on target.

No surprises there for me. Big deal!

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The biggest myth of history would be a tie between Americans elect their presidents or there is a differerence in the party’s of the Demopublicans the demonrats,and republicrats,the old guard republicans I am talking about before trump.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Litwin]

Very true for the most part

The Wild West was not so wild
Mostly just farmers and ranchers trying to survive

yes and no, MANY People do not understand the bitter savagery that was the US frontier. Getting revolvers were a big game changer for the Rangers.

 

[mikegriffith1]

MSN

goes against what some have been trying to peddle here. Not vouching for every point made but they are mostly on target.

No. 2 is poorly worded and problematic. It seems to confuse the war with secession. It is describing the issues that led to secession while pretending to be talking about the war. Slavery was not "a" key issue in the secession crisis, it was "the" key issue. The issues of "states’ rights, economic systems, and political power" as causes of secession mostly revolved around disputes related to slavery. The tariff was a major issue and the second-biggest issue in the North-vs.-South strife that led to the first wave of secession, but slavery was the main cause.

The cause of the war was the Confederacy's mind-bogglingly dumb decision to bombard Fort Sumter and Lincoln's understandable reaction of sending a Union army into Virginia.

 

[Dekster]

The first thanksgiving thing is accurate. In Virginia they started sharing meals with the natives who used the custom to butcher people one day so it ended until the Pilgrams.

 

[longly]

yes and no, MANY People do not understand the bitter savagery that was the US frontier. Getting revolvers were a big game changer for the Rangers.

You're absolutely right—before the six Shooter Came on the scene. The Texans were having a hell of a time. Even the Paterson Colt had its shortcomings made a big impact. These pistols couldn’t be reloaded during a fight or from horseback, but they did give you five .32 caliber bullets. Many Texas Rangers carried as many as four, which was a significant amount of weight.


When the Walker Colt came out, it was another game-changer. It cut the weight the Rangers had to carry in half, with most Rangers now carrying only one or two.


During the first Texas-Comanche War, the Texans nearly eliminated the Southern Comanche. They likely would have succeeded if the state hadn't run out of money. There's a story that the first time the Comanche encountered Texans armed with their new revolvers, they couldn’t comprehend what was happening. They just kept rushing forward, thinking the Texans were out of ammunition—until almost all l of them were almost wiped out.

When the Comanche used bows and arrows and the Texans used muzzle-loading weapons, the Indians had a big advantage. They could fire as many as ten arrows before a Texan could reload once. But when six-shooters came out, that changed—they couldn’t compete with the firepower of the new revolvers.


With the Paterson Colt, six Texas Rangers had the firepower of sixty muzzle-loaders. The Comanche simply couldn't match that. They did manage to get their hands on some of these weapons, but they faced a major disadvantage in logistics. They still had to rely on bows and arrows sometimes. They managed to establish a supply line with people known as the Comancheros—Mexican American citizens from New Mexico.


However, that system only worked as long as they had something to trade. Once they started to lose access to trade goods, they had nothing left to barter and no way to resupply.

 

[whitehall]

It's easy to take apart because it's not really history. It's mostly 19th century pop culture fiction written by pulp authors and promoted by Hollywood and the mainstream media for the almighty buck.

 

[longly]

It's easy to take apart because it's not really history. It's mostly 19th century pop culture fiction written by pulp authors and promoted by Hollywood and the mainstream media for the almighty buck.

 

[longly]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you're talking about whether the Wild West was truly 'wild,' that depended on where and when you lived. However, by 1890, it was pretty much over everywhere. Very few individuals carried guns anymore. Most people owned guns but carrying them was too much trouble when they weren't needed as much.

It is interesting to note that in some places today, an individual might need a gun for self-protection more than they would have in the 1890s. I presume that's because, in the 1890s, the law was respected more than it is today.

 

[Ringo]

 

[AZrailwhale]

Very true for the most part

The Wild West was not so wild
Mostly just farmers and ranchers trying to survive

And most were ACW vets who didn't put up with criminals. Criminals tended to live very short and exciting lives. Thats why the few successful ones got so much publicity, the rest all died quickly and anonymously.