I posted some thoughts on the the media's manipulation and role in the current argument over health care in another thread but I believe this subject need it's own discussion to fully explore people's beliefs and attitudes toward the media and, by extension, education.

First let me say that I believe the public should be privy to just about any and all information pertaining to them and that a government that hides behind "need to know" directives to keep said info from it citizens is not to be trusted. There's a lot of info here that is "classified" that have absolutely no reason being cloaked in the secrecy by the government. And they cloak information not for the benefit or protection of the people but to further the power elite's own ambitions against the people themselves. If we are truly the government, this practice simply has to stop. And then of course there is always the spin of misinformation that permeates every office in the land. Why are they afraid to tell us the truth? This is the basis for my discussion here.

When growing up, we are all indoctrinated with the propaganda of the society in which we live. This is called elementary and secondary education. There we are taught what "they" want us to know and how "they" want us to learn that info. This is usually described as K through 12 and there is very little independent study that will be offered to the student at all. Then we move to post secondary education, the period of our formal education that consists of our collegiate and advanced collegiate careers. Here we are taught our place in society, who is below and above of in the social strata of the country. We are given choices to make as to where we want to be placed according to the level of indoctrination a student may choose to receive. Here independent study is encouraged albeit within a particular discipline in hopes of furthering the student's indoctrination to the societal norms in her/his niche. It is not until after our formal education that most of us are exposed to independent thought. The journey of our personal and intellectual growth truly begins at this point. I say this because there are those of us who choose to take this journey and those of us who choose to let others tell us about that journey. I will deal with both groups in an effort to bring into focus the black and white of media and educational manipulation.

Most of us were taught that this country was founded as a country of religious tolerance and political freedoms. We are taught that the individual rights trump those of other concerns as a basis for liberty and freedom. We are taught that the Founders sought to nobly empower the people against the tyranny of government. What we aren't taught is that from the very start, this country was founded by businessmen for the express purpose of controlling their businesses from outside interests. It was a business tax and the bank charter that made that tax legal that started the American Revolution, nothing more, nothing less. The freedoms that flowed out as result of the insurrection were a bi-product of the manipulation of these men to get the commoners to fight for their cause. If told the truth, why would the laborer, the seamen, the farm hand risk his life for someone's else property or holdings? So these men, our Founding Fathers wrote documents and articles of government guaranteeing the rights of the individual over the State, in an effort to win the support of the common man. I won't go into the conditions and limitations of those documents here as that is not my intention. So these men, through misinformation, were able to gain the trust and support of the men who formed their army, fought and won the Revolution..
After independence was gained for these businessmen, they set out to regain, wholly, the power they had held over the lives of the men who had fought for them before the Revolution. Hamilton and the Federalists started consolidating authority to the central government over the States almost immediately through bank laws, the Jay treaty and control of the John Marshall Supreme Court. The people who hold up the Federalist Papers as the basis of States Rights have either not read them or misinterpreted their meaning completely. They are and remain the basis of the strong central government we now see in Washington.

Although there are many significant events that happened to consolidate the federal government's authority over the States in the subsequent years following the Revolution, none are more important than the American Civil War. In many ways, that war never ended, as we are witnessing today. But lets look at the reasons we were taught the Civil war was fought as opposed to the real reasons that conflict happened.
If asked, "Why was the American Civil War fought, most would answer the abolition of the human trade or the end of slavery. They would tell you that Abe Lincoln was a principled emancipator. They would tell you that because the South wanted to secede the Union, Lincoln ordered the war to save to Union of States.
This is what they have been taught formally. Only the last answer comes anything close to the truth.
Lincoln was no lover of the African slave, thinking the white race as superior to the black race. Candidate Lincoln said in 1858, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making jurors of the Negros." This gives us great insight into the mind of "The Great Emancipator" and one has to wonder why this is not taught in our schools but rather must be searched out through independent study. And lets not forget that the North profited from slavery as much as the South through their textile industry that wove the chief southern crop of cotton into material commodities. The North didn't free their slaves as some have been taught, they sold them to southern plantation owner for profit when they decided it was no loner profitable to keep slaves themselves, thus the saying "sold down the river". And of course it was northern shipping companies that perpetuated the slave trade by bringing in slaves on their ships. No, The Civil War was fought over money and control of that money. The real flash point was a proposed treaty with France southern plantation owners had made to sell their cotton. This would have bypassed the northern bankers and textile owners, reducing their profits and further enriching the South. The northern business men didn't like this prospect and and enacted laws and taxes on the south which forced them to consider withdrawing from the Union in their best interests. When the South sent a delegation the Lincoln to discuss the matter, Lincoln would not see them, and faced with this rebuke, one by one the southern states declared their independence from the Union which eventually led to the Declaration of Secession in early 1861. The American Civil War began in earnest in April 1861.
Now it is important to note that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in two parts, the first, issued on Sept 22 1862, freeing slaves in those states which did not return to the Union by Jan 1, 1863. So in other words, those southern states that did return before Jan1th would be allowed to keep their slaves. The second was issued on Jan1, 1863 named which states the proclamation would pertain to. Interestingly, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't extend to all slave states, especially the State of Louisiana. This would mean that contrary to what we have been taught, Lincoln was not The Great Emancipator. The reason Lincoln has been painted so graciously is because he saved the northern elite from losing power and influence, and at the same time, consolidated more power in the hands of the central government. He also imposed the income tax (The Act of 1862) on the northern population to serve as proof of that power and although only implemented to fund the war effort, the power elite established it as law with the 16th amendment in 1913.

Civil Rights and The Great Society are the last subjects I'll discuss here. Especially civil rights. I'm going to make this one very short, as it doesn't need a lot of explanation. The Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s cemented the federal government's supreme authority over the States. And in not allowing for the civil rights of black Americans, southern politicians and leaders rang the final death knell for States Rights and allowed the central government to become the final authority in all issues concerning the people of this country. Now I'm not arguing the benefit or the necessity of the Civil Rights Acts, only what they mean and how important the acts are to the feds.
First, the Civil Rights Act made the central government an absolute necessity because it provides protections only the central government has authority to enforce. Without it, there would be no equal protection under the law for all Americans. That's the most important article, with voting rights and enforcement being the second. Johnson's great Society ushered in Medicare and expanded public assistance programs exponentially until now the States couldn't maintain those programs if they wanted to now. These laws made a percent of the population, people of all origins, always attached to the federal government. Some farm programs are now totally under federal jurisdictional. With HUD becoming a cabinet position in 1965, the federal government entrenched itself in almost every aspect of the American life as we know it. But we are taught to view these eras as triumph instead enslavement.

It is this insidious nature of media and mis-education that has led us to the atmosphere we have in this country today. Black people are led to believe one story while whites are told another, in it happens to everyone else in between. It is why the North leads us to believe their reasons for abolishing slavery were benevolent, all the while knowing they did it because it was actually cheater for them to hire the Irish or Chinese for $4 a month as opposed to spending $50 to $250 a month dollars to maintain one slave as their property. The South kept their white share croppers feeling they were independent by allowing them a little piece of land to live on and telling them that they were superior than the slave by virtue of their white skin, all the while manipulating them in every way possible. It is why many today feel so entitled that they perceive their ideology is the only way righteous path for anyone to take, all the while trampling the very principles they profess to love. It is why there are people, who are equally poor, fighting among each other to find the favor of a ruthless task master instead of banding together to demand their rights. It is why there are those who look at what others have in envy instead of enjoying what they themselves have been blessed by God with. It is all in the way we are manipulated in to believing what truly, when carefully though of, is the unbelievable.

www.lp.org

The sparks that started the Civil War were very much about slavery, in that the Kansas Nebraska Act allowed new states to vote on that issue independently. The new Republican party was created in opposition to that Act. Despite comments by historians that the Civil War started over "states rights", it was largely the rights of states to determine their own stand on slavery. So it's a very fine line.

You chose a quote by Lincoln, there are many more. Some historians have commented since as a boy, Lincoln worked very hard and had to turn over his earnings to his harsh father, he had some rather strong feelings against servitude. I know that the Emancipation Proclamation was a political move and he would have rather not done it. But I don't think the reason why he didn't want to do it had anything to do with his personal feelings. I think it's important to remember just what a political tight spot he was in during the war.

I'm not trying to defend him to you, just stating my opinion. I don't expect to change YOUR mind.......... .

Maybe I grew up in some kind of space/time warp, but I was encouraged from a very young
age to think for myself. Individuality was emphasized. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case anymore.

Paddy, one quick question. Why, if what you think is true, would Lincoln issue the proclamation a year and a half into the conflict if slavery was the spark for the Civil War? I've never known any state to go to war and Then issue the reason why more than a year later. And, taking your premise as true, then one would have to believe that the war was indeed about States Rights, with slavery a extenuating circumstance. It is true that the South wanted to continue the institution of slavery for economic reasons and the North wanted to weaken the southern economy to exert more control over the plantation owners. So you have a clash of opposing opinions about what rights were to be recognized and which weren't to be. Really, when you look deeply at the reasons for the conflict, slavery is almost an after thought.

Also, about Lincoln, why would he free only those slaves in the territories that had seceded from the Union and not the others in territories that remained loyal to him and the central government in Washington? Answer that question and I'll cease and desist from further challenges on the subject. Mind you, the answer must be an opinion based on fact and not fancy. My belief, and that of many others, is that he did this to weaken the South's ability to wage war, or really defend themselves, by causing slaves to either upraise against or flee the South requiring the Confederates to use their man power in missions to quell the intern disturbances instead of being able to use them to wholly fight the North. It would make sense given that many of the slaves were conscripted to be wagon drivers, mule skinners, wheel and wagon makers, cooks, valets, and stretcher bearers for the Confederate Army. There were also slaves who actually fought on the side of the Confederates and thus their freedom, if a cause for them to flee, would further reduce the numbers of the already out manned rebels. Now your turn.

And yeah Paddy, I'm sort of a political and military historian. LOL (how'd he know what I was thinking?)

Paddy, Free, I am also a historian of sorts and have done much reading in American History. I have to agree with Free, Paddy. His information is accurate.

We were taught in school that slavery was the cause of the Civil War because, at least in my day, kids were not supposedly smart enough to grasp the concept of States Rights. Later study on my part indicated that this was the truth. A simple statement of this type is easily assimilated especially by school kids.

It might be interesting to note that the Revolution in this country in 1776 was pushed by a small, boisterous, and vocal group that got their way. There is a book entitled Oliver Wiswell which gives the Tory side of the American Revolution, You will find it quite interesting and quite different from what you were taught in school.

As Free mentioned, reality is much different from "common knowledge". Remember too, the winner writes the history books.

And apparently Texans can make up whatever they want to put in their textbooks. (I know there's another thread on this, but it's an example of writing your own version of history.)

Absolutely fascinating...

Great post Free! There's a book called "Hamilton's Curse" authored by Thomas DiLorenzo, have you ever read it? If not, I would highly recommend it...

I think it's a matter of semantics and which particular historian and part of history you are looking at, at any given time. I didn't say the war started over slavery, or that Lincoln had any intention of abolishing slavery when the war began. But Abolution was a huge issue at the time, it is fact that the newly formed Republican party was formed in opposition to allow the settlers in the new states to vote for or against slavery independently. Lincoln was a Republican. So whatever his personal feelings may have been, it's reasonable to assume that he was not pro-slavery. The John Brown incident is accepted by most historians as THE largest factor in driving the southern states to suceed.

Perhaps I didn't state it clearly, but I thought I said the war WAS started over states rights, but that slavery was the biggest issue within those parameters. So altho it is correct to say it started over state rights, it would be incorrect to say that slavery had nothing to do with it or as you put it, an after thought.

I thought I also stated that Lincoln was walking a very fine political line in terms of slavery, seems it was the "healthcare reform" of it's time. He was a politician......duh.

I also said that I didn't want to defend him to you. All the well worded debate in the world aren't going to change my mind or yours. I am not here to do that. Just to put in my opinion. There are so many sources and historians willing to give their opinions on the Civil War........pick one.

Why do people assume what I was taught in school? I've read everything I can get my hands on about the civil war. Been doing so for years. For some, the political and military aspect of it may be most appealing. I am fascinated by the human aspect. What went on in these men's minds. Not only the big players, but the ordinary man who marched across the field, staring into cannons and overwhelming odds. How did Lincoln handle the pressure? What turned a teacher of Letters into a very effective leader of men into battle?

I have no desire to get into some big discussion. I've been arguing healthcare till I'm blue in the face and I need a break for awhile.

For every fact you produce, I can produce another to support my opinion. What's the point? I'm not arguing AGAINST your side. I just think to underestimate how emotionally charged the issue of slavery was at the time is a mistake. Mostly I'm just tired of being talked to like "poor little girl, doesn't have a clue" and if that's the case, maybe I should just shut up and go away.

Sorry. I really need to figure out why the words "what you learned in school" piss me off instantly. Like BOOM!