“We find few historians who have been diligent enough in their search for truth; it is their common method to take on trust what they help distribute to the public; by which means a falsehood once received from a famed writer becomes traditional to posterity.”

Nothing has changed.

So eloquently put.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. In 1920, alcohol prohibition passed and some nut cases said that people would quit drinking and the country would become a utopia. This insane idea was the wind that reaped the whirlwind. And now we have the same idiosy known as "The War on Drugs". Our jails are bulging with non-violent people, drugs are cheaper and more potent, law enforcement agencies are corrupted,drugs are easily available to children, our cities have more crime and all because of this "War". If Capone was alive today, he would love the "War on Drugs"as a great business opportunity.

WOW, yes - said so very well; by way of extremely limited example: Despots redefine historical concepts such as democracy to garner support for going to war, spreading more lies, and securing a base of wealth and power for an elect.

Well said Mike a politician recently bemoaned the attack on Georgia because "it is a democracy and an old Christian nation". I think that both of those things are great things but if the country were a Monarchy or some run of the mill republic it would appear that the politician would not care. That position some how does not seem to be correct or fair, does it? We learn slowly, children must be spoon fed with simple stories of history generally from their cultural and national tradition, when they get older they may read different view points. There are history students and there history students if you get my point. We must study and weigh many view points to come to complete awareness and truth. Most have limited time for that. It is sad but a fact of life.

Hey Mike, for a good read on exactly what you just said, try John V. Denson's " A Century of War". That'll put a different spin on traditional US History for you.Its very factual and gets into the underlying politics and motives behind events leading to US wars. I was surprised to see in it newspaper articles from Northern papers attacking Lincoln for his crude handling of the outbreak of the Civil War. Slavery? Nope...it wasn't about slavery.

J was not Lincoln's "a house divided against itself cannot stand" speech a lot more than the South could stomach and thus that is why So. Carolina seceded. Lincoln said "we will all be all one or all the other" slave states or free states. Was not that the underlying reason for the secession. Lincoln's reason for taking them on was "to preserve the uninon" but again was not slavery or the lack of its universality the underlying cause of the war.

Compared to yesteryears today's news media is but a conduit for federal, corporate, and military propaganda, it's no longer an individual oversight.

If you want to know what's really happening today, wait fifty years and read a history book. By that time the political interests of both sides of an issue have usually moved on and there is very little reason left to lie. As for the war between the states, the major reason was unfair taxation. There was no income tax (it was unconstitutional) even though during the war Lincoln actually collected an unconstitutional income tax. The main antebellum source of revenue to the federal government was tariffs on imported goods. The industrial north was a net exporter. The agrarian south was a net importer which is why (anti-slavery) Britain supported them during the war. So, the south was funding the expansion of the industrial north and they could do very little about it. They had a lower population and could not effectively oppose legislative tax increases. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Peter is going to get pissed off. When you want to explain a war, money is usually the best place to start.

An inconvenient truth. Good point, Ken.

CIVIL WAR QUOTE: "Since 1789 the South with only rare exception, had controlled the presidency. Control of the office became a symbol of sectional supremacy, and its loss in 1860 was an unbearable psychological blow to the South. Even though the Democrats still controlled Congress and Lincoln himself represented no immidiate threat to slavery, the South felt the danger was imminent. In the aftermath of the election South Carolina voted to leave the Union." Stanley Coben, Collier's Encyclopedia.

Waffler, Lincoln was reported to have offered to return all run away slaves to the seceded cotton states should they rejoin the Union not long before the first shot was fired. I don't think freedom for the slaves was his real motive. You really should read the book for more in depth perspective.

Thanks J It certainly would not hurt for me to read another book. I agree with you that Lincolns first and foremost interest was in preserving the Union but he had a long history of talking about the problem of slavery and it was a festering problem that had to come to an end. The new Republican Party I believed preached putting and end to slavery. I personally believe that the war was necessary. The way the constitution was written and the way that slavery was institutionalized in it a war was the only way to resolve the matter or dissolve the Union. Lincoln nailed it when he said "A house divided cannot stand".

Read "The Real Lincoln" and see that his main purpose was not to preserve the union. It was to centralize power in Washington D.C. And what Sherman did to the South after the war was terrible, and he did it with Lincoln's blessing.

Yes, history is written by the victors ! The false flags of today become the history of tomorrow, and only after all the offenders are long dead, do we have a chance to learn the real story.