"But....why?"

Why oh why have history books made it their prerogative to obscure almost every aspect of history? Do they fear the education of the students and their ability to think for themselves?

I still don't have an answer to this and i'd love to hear one. I've found myself nearly engulfed by "Lies My Teacher Told Me," a wonderful book that expands history and offers the whole story in several situations, including the reign of Abraham Lincoln who has somehow become known as *shudders* a great president.

No. I don't believe everything that i read in books, but i'm finding that my generation, and every generation after mine has no idea why they think that some people were great. They are only told that they were great and that they did great things. And it is also so for organizations.

My current history book (with no fault to the professor), is decent at best. Yet it still labors to speak volumes of blessings for things like the National Bank and Lincoln while skimming over Patrick Henry (who is mentioned, so far, only a few times and each time, he is like a 'stand in' than the icon that he really was). James Madison is painted as a hero and the father of the Constitution but the reason behind that is never fully explained, as is Washington. General Washington is mentioned far more than once, but he is shadowed by useless facts about him such as his demeanor, appearance, and nothing of the political and logistical asualt he endured at Valley Forge. (Though in their defense, they did talk of the creation of the National Bank, something that i had never even heard about in High School history).

To truly expand on every important issue would take volumes and i understand the need to keep costs (and student sanity) at a minimum, but to paint every picture for our children is to blind them to the truth about our history.

I asked several students not long ago why they thought Lincoln was a great president and all of them had the same, obvious reason. But when i informed them about his treachery, his indifference to slaves, and his near complete destruction of the constitution, they either said nothing or said something along the lines of, "He did what he had to do to save the union."

Some even accused me of skewing the facts because they had never heard of such a thing and one even insisted that the books i had read were lies distributed by liberals who want only to succeed and will say anything to change the hearts of Americans. I stood shocked at this as Lincoln's horrible reign has been expanded by not only shelves of books, but by Discovery Channel, National Geographic, and the History Channel. This is not the rant of liberals, yet the general consensus of hundreds of note worthy individuals. But, once more, thanks to our school system, the roaring of a few lions will do nothing, and have done nothing to change the minds of my peers.

But...but, what if we wrote history as it was? What if we spoke of Lincolns desertion of the constitution and of Columbus and of FDR and of the First National Bank? What if we let the doors of knowledge open? Would chaos ensue or would faith in my fellow man prevail and would we eventually learn from history?

Imagine that! Putting real history on the table and letting people make up their own minds.