Why we should NOT stop teaching schoolchildren that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves?

[Taku]

i wanna know some reasons.

[angelharp7]

American slaves were freed during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, but the story is a little more complex than that. It was politically expedient for Lincoln to free the slaves in the Southern states, as it would (and did) cause even more unrest there. The Emancipation Proclamation did NOT, however, free all slaves in the Union territories.

In the process of learning history, one begins at the most basic level, with lots of generalizations, such as "Lincoln freed the slaves" or "women were considered second-class citizens in the Middle Ages" and then as the student develops intellectually, he/she she progresses to more complex, rich, individual, and perhaps more truthful, knowledge of what actually occurred. Generalizations may lay the foundation of learning history, but we can't stop with these generalizations or we risk making history more simplistic than it really is, and doing injustice to the people who lived during difficult times. Children should be taught that Abraham Lincoln was an important figure in American emancipation....but they should also know that there is more to the story than that.

[Johnny]

Lincoln's one number one goal was to save the nation. One of his secondary goals was the right the social wrong of slavery which he used as a rallying cry to save the nation.

[John Galt]

Even though the Civil War was fought to keep the Union together it is important to learn of the corollary effects that occurred.

[numbat]

His purpose was clear.

“ I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

I would say the obvious reason is because he did!

The Emancipation Proclamation, announced on September 22 and put into effect on January 1, 1863, freed slaves in territories not under Union control. As Union armies advanced south, more slaves were liberated until all of them in Confederate hands (over three million) were freed.

[Old Man]

I didn't know we had stopped!

[graffx_guy101]

this is a heavy question. he did free the slaves, but he also owned a few. I love the black race, but i think its not fair to blacks to teach that lincoln did this for them without a selfish motive. I think that they were freed because God loved them and God wanted them to be free. Lincoln on the other hand was not a good man. Lincoln kept his slaves until after 1 year after he freed the slaves in the south. (he only freed slaves in the south at that time, but still not in the north immediately. like I said its a loaded question. but if schools teach that he freed them, they should also teach that he did that for leverage to beat the confederate army. (selfish motives). Im so glad God loves the blacks and freed them. praise God.