https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/08/eric-peters/an-interesting-historical-omission/
Why not? Is it not history? The unredacted version?
The truth is almost always nuanced. It is rarely binary, though schoolboys are very much encouraged to believe that it is. The so-called Civil War is another example, beginning with the misleading use of that term to describe what was in unredacted fact the attempt made by a confederacy of Southern states to form their own nation by separating from a “union” they believed had become overbearing and tyrannical to their interests. In other words, the states of the Southern confederacy were very much motivated by the same desire as the American colonies and neither of them had any designs to take over the country. The South wanted to separate from the North, not rule over the North – just as the 13 colonies wanted to separate from the British Empire, not rule it.
A “civil war’s” defining element is two sides vying for control of a country. The British Civil War was a civil war. What occurred in America in 1861-1865 was nothing of the sort. Most schoolboys believe otherwise, though – because it is important that they believe it.
Napoleon famously said that history is a lie agreed upon. He was not wrong, but it’s more than just that. Lies are usually overt. The history imparted to schoolboys is subtler. Exaggerrations and omissions. Half-truths rather than the whole truth. To get the latter, it is necessary to suss it out for yourself. As you do, you will often find that what was imparted to you when you were a schoolboy was not the truth but a narrative. One written and imparted by the victors.