[SpecialOlympian]

There are only a handful of textbook publishers, and Mcgraw Hill, Harcourt/Bruce and Prentice-Hall all repeat the myth, and their texts are used by most districts in Ohio. And it is safe to say most districts period, as no publisher can put up their numbers. Textbooks are politically driven, and set up to either appeal to liberalistic standards or conservative standards. It isn't that hard to do when you have 3, and at most 7, players.

I doubt that it's a conspiracy. The publishers just write the least offensive book they can that meets the standards of the greatest amount of districts.

[Truthseeker]

I guess we shouldn't be surprised, by giving him credit, he bacame not only a hero but a martyr giving the phrase "party of Lincoln" enormous power among African American voters.

[Attila The Nun]

Because they're not ignorant buffoons who do whatever they are told by their authoritarian leaders?

Of course, history will never be totally objective, and of course, the more detached you are from the history the more objective you can be, but modern society, at least in the West, is becoming more educated, more academic, more responsible for their past. The age of rapid and mass distribution of information makes lies and propaganda much more difficult to contain, and with a hint of research, any independently thinking student can be lead to different truths. This is what democracy requires to survive - an informed and educated public.

Most people like to see a nationalist tint on history. Hence the American Revolution becomes an entirely American victory, D-Day is given days to cover but Stalingrad is briefly mentioned, Woodrow Wilson isn't a racist etc. You may believe that all these things have been overcome, but as long as the majority of people still believe them, this is "true" history.

Happens all the time. We're already making progress in revealing the truths about the Indian Wars, the Mexican-American War, various authoritarian actions taken by FDR in the Great Depression and WWII... all kinds of things. The myths of the past are continually debunked by academia as soon as the information becomes available.

Right now, the primary enemy of education is the government that is withholding important government reports and documents from WWII and the Cold War. The Freedom of Information Act was a great step forward, but the battle isn't over.

How many people give a damn about the Mexican-American war? Also, the only widely known aciton taken by FDR was the Japanese internment, and even then most people still have gap s missing, for instance that it wasn't only Japanese interred. FDR remains the big government hero. It doesn't matter how much new information you come out with, as long as the people wish to accept a version of history, that is the truth.

[Zagadka]

You may believe that all these things have been overcome

No, I believe SHOULD and CAN be overcome.

but as long as the majority of people still believe them, this is "true" history.

No, it is "popular" history, suitable for morons. I'll repeat again, that doesn't mean that every academics' crusade shouldn't be for truth and accuracy.

Edit:

During a meditation on objectivity tonight, I came to the following conclusion.

Historians are the news media of the past. As the media reports current events, history reports past events. Both journalists/authors/etc and historial/archeologists/social scientists have a *duty*, not unlike the duty of doctors to help the ill, to report as accurately and objectively as possible.

History should constantly be challenged, and kept pure with vigilance. It should tell the truth, as far as the truth can be determined. Just as non-objective media is corrupt and spreads disinformation and lies or editorials, history does the same. Both branches of study should be made as objective as possible, through *peer review* and other scientific methods.

[Captain Hat]

Now that I have time to sit, read, and analyze, I will produce a rebuttal.

First, the obvious. This writer obviously has a chip on his shoulder, and further more, fails to cite and/or quote directly from this supposed letter. His frequent labeling of mainstream scholars as "cult members" is certainly a sign that this gentleman holds a clear bias.

Anyway...moving onto the "first 13th" Amendment. If anyone is familiar with Lincoln, especially just before the war started, this amendment fit right in with his politics. Lincoln, at the time, sought the preservation of the Union, and to stop the spread of slavery. Lincoln said, on many occassions that slavery was a "moral wrong" but at the same time did not believe that as president he had any power to do anything about it. The author also fails to recognize Lincoln's achievements during the war, and a little known peace conference held in February, 1865, with the Confederate Vice President, Alexander Stephens. Stephens, with instructions from his government, essentially offered the surrender of the Confederate government if, in exchange Lincoln would drop the condition of the abolition of slavery for re-admission to the Union. The suggestion was popular within most of the North (except New England), however, Lincoln rejected Stephens's proposals and the war went on until its conclusion later that spring.

The article also references the "real pragmatists" - the various colonial Empires. "Empire" being the key word. Being an Empire, the British, French, Dutch, and Danes, could easily just say that slavery would cease to exist. It should also be noted that the Spanish were in no way pragmatic when it came to slavery, it was abolished within the Spanish Empire in 1889. Its really not a fair comparison.

In conclusion, this article is a very shabby and biased piece.

[Attila The Nun]

Thank you, Captain Hat.

No, I believe SHOULD and CAN be overcome.

And has never been overcome, becuase that is not how history works. History, as far as the vast majorty of people are concerned, is not about accuracy. Do you not see the difference between an educated elite and the masses of people? History is not made to be accurate for the masses. It is made to inspire a nationalistic sense in them, to glorify the state. From Cincinnatus to Oliver Cromwell to George Washington, all these stories are inflated and widely propogated beyond correction to the point where the true history, as you would call it, is lost. That's the way it has always been, there is no sign of this changing.

No, it is "popular" history, suitable for morons. I'll repeat again, that doesn't mean that every academics' crusade shouldn't be for truth and accuracy.

Historians are the news media of the past. As the media reports current events, history reports past events. Both journalists/authors/etc and historial/archeologists/social scientists have a *duty*, not unlike the duty of doctors to help the ill, to report as accurately and objectively as possible.

History should constantly be challenged, and kept pure with vigilance. It should tell the truth, as far as the truth can be determined. Just as non-objective media is corrupt and spreads disinformation and lies or editorials, history does the same. Both branches of study should be made as objective as possible, through *peer review* and other scientific methods.

Popular history is real history, becaus it is the propogated history. And history will always have bias, if not ismply because someone has to write it, and he has to have some kind of feelings on the subject. But, most often the history of the winners is the one propogated, and so that is the one that becomes truth. It matters not what actually happens, it only matters which one gets propogated, because that is the one the masses will believe, and that is the one which will be kept alive. It matters little wat a few people will think history is, because it is not the history to be passed to the next generations.

[Captain Hat]

It's my opinion that history is an event that is verified and analyzed judging by evidence, such as contemporary documents, and that "popular" history as Attila has termed it is rubbish. If it can't be verified by evidence, then its not fact, and its not history, and its a fable.

[Zagadka]

Do you not see the difference between an educated elite and the masses of people? History is not made to be accurate for the masses. It is made to inspire a nationalistic sense in them, to glorify the state.

That's rubbish. It isn't history, it is propaganda. Uneducated masses is the worst threat a democracy can face. Spreading nationalism is not and should not be a duty of the state.

From your sig and previous posts, I presume that you fall on the right side of the spectrum, so I would think that you would believe in small government - but instead, you believe in government indoctrination of the people with propaganda. THAT is anti-American.

[Red_Army]

I would say that sending slaves to Liberia was not such a terrible idea back then. I mean segregation isn't perfect, and it's stupid to judge people simply based on their race, but Zagadka is wrong to say that slavery = domestic segregation.

Slavery is much more than that, it is a system where blacks are forced to work for nothing and are sold and traded like cattle along with their offspring. However bad domestic segregation is, it is not slavery. Global segregation doesn't even make sense as a term, as it implies some force is keeping people where they are. People are Japanese because they live in Japan, is living in Japan akin to segregation?

I guess I'm a follower of the Lincoln cult... I don't care how much of a racist he was, I value him for what his presidency accomplished, ie, the protection of the union, end of slavery, and reunification. If Lincoln wasn't assassinated reconstruction would have gone by much more smoothly, with far less corruption and bloodshed.

[Attila The Nun]

That's rubbish. It isn't history, it is propaganda. Uneducated masses is the worst threat a democracy can face. Spreading nationalism is not and should not be a duty of the state.

Uneducated masses (because the masses never have and never will be educated to a sufficient degree) are the basis of a democracy. There has never been a democracy not based on educated masses, at least not one with any kind of appreciable sufferage. Spreading nationalism is the duty of a smart state, as it helps the state's goal, to hold onto and spread it's influence.

From your sig and previous posts, I presume that you fall on the right side of the spectrum, so I would think that you would believe in small government - but instead, you believe in government indoctrination of the people with propaganda. THAT is anti-American.

Either you're going back to my Libertarian days, or you're really missing the point of my posts. By the way, my sig reads "The Emperor And The People Of America". Very libertarian.

[Zagadka]

Spreading nationalism is the duty of a smart state

A corrupt state.

We obviously disagree on the role of a government in relation to its people. I won't bang my head against a wall any further, but I will offer the following quote and thought:

"People shouldn't be afraid of their government. The government should be afraid of the people."

Democracy exists to serve the masses, not to miseducate and lead them blindly. That is an oligarchy or aristocracy. Democracy means that the masses hold power, and that requires education of the masses.

[Attila The Nun]

If you do not wish to continue this in the future, so be it. But, if you want to send me away with something to consider, I shall retort: A good philosophy should always be derived first and foremsot from evidence supporting it, not what the philosopher wants to be true. If you are to be a good philosopher, you will look for such evidence.

[wonder cow]

A letter to the Governor of Florida found in Pennsylvania.

Gezz, the post office sucked back then too.

I declare this whole thing as "fishy". You have been informed.

wonder cow, over.

edit:

From IXA's source: Thomas J. DiLorenzo a professor in Maryland - a confederate state, seems to have an axe to grind with ol’ Abe.

He's also selling a book.

[Morpheus]

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." - Lincoln, http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative ... reeley.htm

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes." - Lincoln, http://www.nps.gov/liho/debate4.htm

"The American Colonization Society was organized in 1816. Mr. Clay, though not its projector, was one of its earliest members; and he died, as for the many preceding years he had been, its President. It was one of the most cherished objects of his direct care and consideration; and the association of his name with it has probably been its very greatest collateral support. He considered it no demerit in the society, that it tended to relieve slave-holders from the troublesome presence of the free negroes; but this was far from being its whole merit in his estimation. In the same speech from which I have quoted he says: "There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children, whose ancestors have been torn from her by the ruthless hand of fraud and violence. Transplanted in a foreign land, they will carry back to their native soil the rich fruits of religion, civilization, law and liberty. May it not be one of the great designs of the Ruler of the universe, (whose ways are often inscrutable by short-sighted mortals,) thus to transform an original crime, into a signal blessing to that most unfortunate portion of the globe?" This suggestion of the possible ultimate redemption of the African race and African continent, was made twenty-five years ago. Every succeeding year has added strength to the hope of its realization. May it indeed be realized! Pharaoh's country was cursed with plagues, and his hosts were drowned in the Red Sea for striving to retain a captive people who had already served them more than four hundred years. May like disasters never befall us! If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means, succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery; and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land, with bright prospects for the future; and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation. And if, to such a consummation, the efforts of Mr. Clay shall have contributed, it will be what he most ardently wished, and none of his labors will have been more valuable to his country and his kind." http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative ... s/clay.htm

"I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose you do not. Yet I have neither adopted, nor proposed any measure, which is not consistent with even your view, provided you are for the Union. I suggested compensated emancipation; to which you replied you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But I had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way, as to save you from greater taxation to save the Union exclusively by other means.

You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and, perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently. I think the constitution invests its Commander-in-chief, with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it, helps us, or hurts the enemy? Armies, the world over, destroy enemie's property when they can not use it; and even destroy their own to keep it from the enemy. Civilized belligerents do all in their power to help themselves, or hurt the enemy, except a few things regarded as barbarous or cruel. Among the exceptions are the massacre of vanquished foes, and non-combatants, male and female.

But the proclamation, as law, either is valid, or is not valid. If it is not valid, it needs no retraction. If it is valid, it can not be retracted, any more than the dead can be brought to life. Some of you profess to think its retraction would operate favorably for the Union. Why better after the retraction, than before the issue? There was more than a year and a half of trial to suppress the rebellion before the proclamation issued, the last one hundred days of which passed under an explicit notice that it was coming, unless averted by those in revolt, returning to their allegiance. The war has certainly progressed as favorably for us, since the issue of proclamation as before. I know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes believe the emancipation policy and the use of the colored troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the Rebellion, and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers. Among the commanders holding these views are some who have never had any affinity with what is called abolitionism or with the Republican party policies but who held them purely as military opinions. I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections often urged that emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures and were not adopted as such in good faith.

You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistence to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes." http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative ... nkling.htm

[mozkill]

No, this is well known to anyone familiar with real American history. Lincoln was an ass. As a younger man, he had attended many slave sales in the south. He was never an abolitionist, never advocated abolition, and never even made it an issue until well into the Civil War when he desperately played to an audience for more recruits.

This is probably NOT true. I have looked at many books of Lincoln including most of Meridel LeSueur's books and your comment is completely unfounded.