"Love Lincoln" Propaganda For Fifth Graders

IMG Auteur
Published : October 13th, 2013
1159 words - Reading time : 2 - 4 minutes
( 5 votes, 4.8/5 ) , 1 commentary
Print article
  Article Comments Comment this article Rating All Articles  
0
Send
1
comment
Our Newsletter...
Category : Fundamental
This historical fact of Lincoln tyranny is CENSORED from US government school classrooms.

By Al Benson Jr.

How do you create Lincoln lovers at the fifth grade level and thereby assure that most of them will continue to believe the pro-Lincoln propaganda that the public school system will continually throw in their faces up through high school and on into the college level? 

You do it by making Lincoln look like an underdog, because most people, adults as well as kids, will feel automatic sympathy for the underdog. An outfit called Scholastic Teaching Resources has done this for fifth graders in the state of Georgia and, I’m sure, for others around the country.

They publish a one-page summary on Lincoln, to be read before taking a “bubble test” on the content of that one page. The one page is a mélange of partial truths about Lincoln and the slavery issue, which as most of us know, is the reason educators tout as being the cause of the “Civil War.”

They start off by noting that Lincoln was not always considered to be a heroic person (the implication there being that he should have been). The summary states that: “Lincoln was hated in the South because he wanted to free the slaves.” Actually, Lincoln had very little concern for the slaves. He was a decided “racist” as his comments during the Lincoln-Douglas Debates in 1858 conclusively show. He was a supporter of the Corwin Amendment, (read The Lincoln-Corwin Keep Your Slaves article on this blog spot) which, had it been enacted, would have been the original 13th Amendment. 

The Corwin Amendment, introduced by Thomas Corwin of Ohio, of all places, would have allowed for slavery to be continued in perpetuity and this amendment had Lincoln’s support. And Lincoln readily admitted that his main concern was to keep the Union preserved (under a strong central government) and that if he could free half the slaves to do that he would, if he could do that by freeing none of the slaves he would. Contrary to the drivel our kids are fed in public schools, Lincoln’s concern for the slaves was, at best, minimal.

The summary continues: “On the other hand, many in the North thought that Lincoln was a coward for not having freed the slaves already.” Another partial truth! Most in the North couldn’t have cared less about the slavery issue. They were just as “racist” in their own way as any Southerner and they, quite frankly, did not want a lot of blacks living amongst them. Many northern states, Lincoln’s Illinois included, had laws on the books to restrict black immigration into their states and to limit the time blacks could stay there. This is a little-known fact that the so-called “history” books almost never deal with. 

Since this would make the North accurately look as “racist” as the South it is just ignored. The fifth graders just don’t need to know this—anymore than the college students do—and brainwashed fifth graders make easy-to-fool college students.

The summary states that: “In 1862 he (Lincoln) signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all the slaves in the Southern states. This is another of those infamous half-truths that, for some reason, the “educators” never seem to get right. The kids are almost always taught that the Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves in the South. If the truth be known, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. You read that right. 

Lincoln, or whoever, wrote it so that it would free only those slaves in areas of the South that were still under the control of the Confederate States of America. Since Lincoln had no authority in the Confederate States of America to free anyone or do anything, it was, in the truest sense, nothing more than a war propaganda measure. And there were exceptions. Any parts of the Confederate States that had been captured by the Union and were, henceforth, under Union control, got to keep their slaves, as did the Southern states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri which had all remained in the Union. What Lincoln did with his infamous proclamation was to free slaves where he had no authority to do so and leave them in bondage where he had the authority to free them. I would suggest that concerned people get a copy of the proclamation and read what it really says in its entirety.

What passes for history in public schools nowadays, and for decades now, never deals with this. Down the memory hole! I’ve read other public school material in years past about Lincoln’s proclamation and this is the way it’s always presented—that it freed all the slaves in the South. A subtle half truth if the kids don’t know their history.

And the summary states, near its conclusion that: “Finally on April 9, 1864, the South surrendered and the Civil War finally ended. Outside of getting the year wrong, another half truth appears. On April 9, 1865 Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia—and that’s all he surrendered. As commander of all the Confederate forces at that point he could have surrendered them all but he didn’t. There were still Confederate armies in the field so the war was not officially over. In fact the Confederate government never officially surrendered. The only surrenders that took place were by armies in the field. 

Jefferson Davis and the Confederate States cabinet fled rather than surrender. 

Most of them were eventually caught, but the Confederate States government never issued a surrender document—and this is something else they don’t discuss.

What they do with this fifth grade material is to attempt to make Lincoln look like the underdog and thereby create sympathy for him and the Union cause, which deserves no sympathy if you understand the issues. Lincoln was much more concerned with collecting tariffs than he was with freeing slaves, but they are not about to tell the fifth graders that. It would dilute the “love Lincoln” image they are trying to pass off on these unknowing kids as “education.” It’s all part of the ongoing “hate the South” campaign that we see so vividly portrayed in Hollyweird, the media, and Washington. And part of this campaign is to get the kids to hate their own history and heritage and to feel guilty about being Southerners. I wonder if they will ever bother to tell the kids that slavery existed in the North, too; they just got rid of it a little earlier than the South did, or if they will inform them about the Northern folks who took the major part in the slave trade. You’ll have to pardon me if I tend to doubt that such will ever happen.

Southern kids, and others too, need to get out of these establishment propaganda mills and begin to learn real history from alternative sources. It can be found if you are willing to look.


Data and Statistics for these countries : Georgia | All
Gold and Silver Prices for these countries : Georgia | All
<< Previous article
Rate : Average note :4.8 (5 votes)
>> Next article
All the stuff you don't want to know about, but should. And, when you do know, you realize that for the present you are powerless to change it This article is brought to you by the Charleston Voice E-mail List. To subscribe FREE to the distribution list, send an e-mail to the author with 'SUBSCRIBE' in the subject line.
Comments closed
  All Favorites Best Rated  
Excellent points. I would make one correction, however. You wrote "What Lincoln did with his infamous proclamation was to free slaves where he had no authority to do so and leave them in bondage where he had the authority to free them." Lincoln had no authority to free slaves anywhere except under his powers to confiscate enemy property in a time of war. Quoting himself in his first inaugural address, Lincoln said "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Lincoln admits he has no authority to end slavery as president, but "by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States" he did; But only in places that were in rebellion at the time of the proclamation. Those places the U.S. Army and Navy controlled were not considered in rebellion. He had not no authority to free slaves there. In those places outside his control, he had no power to free slaves, but he claimed the authority. Therefore, he was telling the slaves to free themselves in those areas and he would not suppress their efforts - for what that is worth. Ezra Pound said a slave is someone who waits for some else to come and free him. Even in slavery, the ruler, in the end, ultimately depends on the consent of the ruled. The big question is why do the governed consent to the rule of a bunch of wankers.
Rate :   2  0Rating :   2
EmailPermalink
Latest comment posted for this article
Excellent points. I would make one correction, however. You wrote "What Lincoln did with his infamous proclamation was to free slaves where he had no authority to do so and leave them in bondage where he had the authority to free them." Lincoln had no  Read more
Pappy Yokum - 10/19/2013 at 12:36 AM GMT
Rating :  2  0
Top articles
World PM Newsflow
ALL
GOLD
SILVER
PGM & DIAMONDS
OIL & GAS
OTHER METALS
Take advantage of rising gold stocks
  • Subscribe to our weekly mining market briefing.
  • Receive our research reports on junior mining companies
    with the strongest potential
  • Free service, your email is safe
  • Limited offer, register now !
Go to website.