Unions, Hitler, Slavery and the Governments Bastardization of American History

 

If anything were a poster example of why the government should NOT be running our education system, it should be that of our 30th place ranking in the world among other countries in K-12 education and the ignorance bestowed on our youth with the pushing of the liberal agenda.

We hear Democrats cry foul when Texas picks their books because how Texas goes in purchasing books for K-12 education, so goes most of the country.

How do the unionized teachers deal with this? Why, they cut out what they do not like and substitute it with their version or what is commonly “politically correct”.

The ignorance about Unions and Hitler I have painfully been subjected to listening too lately is that “Hitler did away with Unions just like Republican are doing away with Unions”; equating Republicans to Hitler.

Awwwwww…….Ignorance must be bliss on the left, you know the political party that is highly more intelligent than the right according to NPR?

Brief History less, and I suggest reading Mein Kampf to better understand Hitler, his purpose and the reasoning behind ORIGINALLY doing away with unions:

Although Hitler originally wrote this book mostly for the followers of National Socialism, it grew in popularity.”

Hitler broke up the currently existing unions in Germany not because he was anti-union but because they were run by Jews.

Hitler’s union: German Labour Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front)

From “Mein Kampf”:

“The general belief was that a workman engaged in some trade or other could not exist if he did not belong to a trade union. Not only were his professional interests thus protected but a guarantee of permanent employment was simply inconceivable without membership in a trade union”

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch12.html

He broke up the old unions and replaced them with new ones!! How is it meaningful to break up unions composed of people you don’t like and turn right around and organize a new one? He was ANTI-SEMITIC, NOT ANTI-UNION.

Hitler had overwhelming support of the German people. He did not obtain power by military coercion or anything of this nature; rather he was elected into power. The German people LOVED Hitler, right up until the very end, that is.

He had Germany convinced the Jews were detrimental to Germany’s recovery, and so, purging unions composed of Jews was no problem. He, according to them (the German people), restored their national identity and put millions back to work. He provided them with a national health care system and everything; this is why they elected him. He was a pure socialist.

“Theoretically the DAF existed to act as a medium through which workers and owners could mutually represent their interests. Wages were set by the 12 DAF trustees. The employees were given relatively high set wages, security of work, dismissal was increasingly made difficult, social security programmes were started by the Arbeitsfront, leisure programmes were started, canteens, pauses and regular working times were established, and therefore generally the German workers were satisfied by what the DAF gave them in repaying for their absolute loyalty.”- the German Labour Front

Hitler was not just socialist in rhetoric. Hitler was socialist in practice; socialism has never been able to sell holistically without violence, so that’s why modern politicians sell it incrementally to prevent internal dissent.

For those who now claim Hitler was a right-winger, who by 100% factual evidence organized a union to give workers artificial wages, banned private property in the name of the state, and wages an anti-capitalist campaign?! LMFAO……there is only ONE party this resembles and it is NOT the Republican Party in America!

This also lends noting, as well on the ignorance of our American youth, thanks to Liberal idealogy and the TRUE cause of the American Civil War.

While working on my Masters in Teaching with Certification I was taking a class that required us to prepare lesson plans using technology-Educational Technology. Because my other two degrees were not in education, I had to take some of my classes with undergraduates.

The fact that a good portion could not speak properly, form complete sentences or even spell properly was alarming, but what followed after my group gave our history lesson on the Civil War was laughable coupled with discouraging.

There is the whole liberal theory that the Civil War was fought because of slavery, to which ANYONE who has properly studied history KNOWS this is not true.

The Civil War ignited first and foremost over states rights. The North imposed 80% taxes on the South, took said monies and use it to build roads, bridges, schools, building, etc while NOT doing the same for the South. Was Slavery an issue in the Civil War-of course, but was it the main reason the war began-NO!

If ending slavery was the main reason for the Civil War, then why did the Lincoln not make ending slavery the driving force until TWO YEARS into the war? At the same time, why did he negotiate with states whereby if they gave up X amount of slaves they could in return keep Y amount of slaves?

Further research would reveal that a political party had indeed based their campaign on the issue of slavery and wasn’t even able to get 200,000 votes in the election of 1852.

If slavery was THAT big an issue, why was this the case?

The issue was money and politics. The south sold cotton cheaper to Europe the south sided with England during the Revolutionary War So there was hostility that had been festering for a long time.

The Civil War was about what the states felt was their right, primarily the right to secede from the Union. They felt that their rights were being taken away, as the colonies did resulting in the Revolutionary War. They were being cornered into choosing Northern products, which were more expensive at the time to other products, and they were losing out in political power as the anti-slavery politicians were fighting the introduction of new “slave” states. (Mass. even went as far as to deny that the new states were states, that the government didn’t have the right to introduce states period.)

Southern politicians viewed the Constitution differently than the Northern politicians did, that the Constitution should be honored as it is read. The Northern Politicians viewed it as an evolving and growing entity.

I spend a great deal of my time deprogramming my students:
• that Slavery is the reason for the Civil War
• All Northerners were good and wanted to end slavery
• All Southerners were bad
• Plantations were everywhere in the South
• Southerners were lazy and did not want to work

Slavery is tied to a number of events that will bring about the Civil War – it is not the only one. It might be argued that it is not the main reason for Northern and Southern tensions and only becomes a major reason in 1863.

Northerners were just as capable of being racist as Southerners; you could legally own slaves in Delaware in 1861.

And the north continued to use slaves well after the civil war. You have to dig deeper than just in the surface of history.

Not all Southerners were bad – logical fallacy

Plantations were not located everywhere throughout the South – about 2/3 of Southerners in 1860 could not afford to own slaves

Southerners were not lazy – do we call businessmen lazy because they manage a number of people? Also, a number of slave owners could afford only one or two slaves and spent their days working alongside their slaves.

There are a number of reasons for why the Civil War was fought.

“States’ Rights”: is a Political direction and desire of a state to put forth its own ideals over the forced supremacy of a federal government. This traces its roots to the Federalist / Anti-Federalist foundations of our nation. Nationalized banking, interstate business, taxation policy, military obligations, right to broker international trade agreements, legal precedents and supremacy of federal court system just to name some examples. “States’ Rights” is not about slavery, it is a bigger issue than just slavery.

Modern vs. Traditional – Will the main political forces in the United State dictate that the nation becomes an Industrialized (Modern) Nation or will it remain an Agrarian (Traditional) society? This is not only an issue of economic foundations but also of societal structure. A reference comparing the Plantation system of the South with Feudal Europe is an easy analogy. Swap names such as Master, slave and plantation with words like Lord, serf, manor and your see the old world European flavor of Southern Culture.

Political Authority: The North was divided between different groups (social, political, ethnic) who held authority within cities and or countryside, while the Southern political system was controlled completely by the minority Aristocratic Planter society.

The Election of 1860: Lincoln was not on the ballot in a number of Southern states – Southerners feel they have no voice in the election process therefore no voice in Washington D.C.

Following the secession of the Southern states, Lincoln asks them to return to the Union during his inaugural address. Lincoln clearly articulates his determination to preserve the Union. Slavery is not the way to preserve the Union in 1861.

Lincoln writes the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 with the hopes of enticing Southern states back into the Union and allowing them to keep their slaves if they rejoin the Union. The Proclamation goes into effect January 1, 1863 – with no real teeth as slaves are still property and Southern Slave owners need not listen to Lincoln until Union troops pass by their plantations

Yes, slavery is a reason attached to a number of events that help bring about the Civil War (Compromise of 1820, Compromise of 1850, Dred Scott, Bleeding Kansas…) but slavery is not a main force in Lincoln’s decision to enter the Civil war. He wanted to preserve the Union. It is during the war that the freeing of the slaves becomes a major factor.

Oh, and one more addition, Lincoln did not own slaves. I cannot say it simpler than this.

Needless to say certain individuals within this class claimed I was racist, to which my teacher explained to them that if they wanted to properly teach their students that it would behoove them to research their material before presenting it because what I was explaining was in fact what took place-in a nut shell.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: