History That Gets Left Out–On Purpose
December 3, 2011
by Al Benson Jr.
Quite often the “history” books in public schools are “interesting” as much for what they leave out as for what they include.
Over the years many of us have seen “history” books that talk about Abraham Lincoln, the “great emancipator.” This was supposedly the man who “freed” the slaves (he didn’t). This was the man who supposedly had a fond spot in his heart for all black folks (actually he was a flaming racist). Even today, blacks continue to revere his name as those he were Moses leading them through the Red Sea. Actually, Lincoln did lead them (and most of the rest of us), through the Red Sea. We just don’t have the sense yet to realize that he drowned us all in the process.
Actually, Lincoln cared not about the slaves one way or the other. His statements showed that. His main concern was “preserving the Union” in such a way that the individual states had no real say, except as allowed by Washington. He didn’t care a flip one way or the other whether slavery flourished or not. As proof of this, witness his support for the Corwin Amendment. “What’s that?” you say. You mean you never read about it in your public school “history” books? Guess it must have been one of those little things the public school “educators” and their friends in the book publishing industry determined you would be better off not knowing about. After all, you cant ask embarrassing questions if you don’t know, can you?
The Corwin Amendment was introduced into Congress in March of 1861. Its sponsor was Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin. That’s right, folks, he was from Ohio, not Georgia or Alabama. Some reports have stated that the Corwin Amendment was introduced to prevent the “Civil War.” It was presented to the Congress in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. The entire idea of the Corwin Amendment was to prohibit Congress from trying to ban slavery in whatever states there were that permitted it. The Corwin Amendment would have stopped Congress from “abolishing or interfering with the ‘domestic institutions’ including ‘persons held to labor or service’ (a reference to slavery).” Interestingly enough, a parallel resolution to that was introduced into the Senate by William H. Seward of New York, (not Georgia, but New York). Wikipedia even notes: “However, the newly formed Confederate States of America was totally committed to independence, and so ignored the proposed Corwin Amendment.” Interesting. Our so-called “historians” (and I use that term rather loosely here) continue to inform us that the sole reason the Southern states seceded was so they could keep their slaves. Here was a golden opportunity for them to keep their slaves and get back into the Union if slavery was all it was all about, and they passed it up. Which shows that there were other reasons for secession than slavery. Now the historians would never admit that, no matter what.
The House approved the legislation by a vote of 133-65 and later in March the Senate approved it by a vote of 24-12. The seven slave-holding states that had already seceded from the Union did not bother to vote on the issue, leading to the inescapable conclusion that, for them, slavery was not the sole issue. Had it been the sole issue, no doubt they could have petitioned Washington to get back into the Union so they could have voted to keep their slaves.
Interestingly enough, the “Great Emancipator” did not opposed the Corwin Amendment. He said, in his first inaugural address: “(H)olding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” In other words, an amendment that made slavery for life the rule of law didn’t bother Mr. Lincoln one iota.
According to http://www.indopedia.org “A young Henry Adams observed that the measure narrowly passed both houses due to the lobbying efforts of Abraham Lincoln, the President-Elect.”
So Lincoln lobbied to get this amendment through both houses of Congress. Something else your history books didn’t bother to inform you of. After all, it wouldn’t fit the image of the “Great Emancipator” that people in both government schools and government wanted to present to the “great unwashed” (and under-educated) masses–so just leave it out. It appears that Mr. Lincoln was not really the great emancipator we have been told he was. His “Emancipation Proclamation” which was really a war and propaganda measure, not withstanding, freed no one. The slaves were not officially freed until the 13th Amendment, late in 1865, after Lincoln had passed from the scene.
Maybe we all need to start asking a few questions about those government school “history” books we were brought up with and that they have been foisting on our kids ever since–embarrassing questions–the kind they don’t want asked.
On The Web: http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/history-that-gets-left-out-on-purpose/