Mandatory Masks and Vaccinations?

by Al Benson Jr.

There has been lots on the net of late telling people they need to wear these masks supposedly to ward off this rotten Chinese virus. There seem to be some that advocate wearing these things 24/7 forever, inside and outside, no matter where you are or might be.

In light of that there seems to be a growing number of doctors that feel these masks are counterproductive. Some feel they cut down on the amount of oxygen you consume over the long haul and so they don’t advocate continued use of them day in and day out forever.

I’m no scientist, but I do try to keep track of what goes on and at this point there are enough medical people questioning the continual use of these masks that I am seriously beginning to wonder.

There are also rumors abounding about a vaccination for this Chinese virus becoming “mandatory.” No doubt there are some globalist types out there that would just love to see such action become mandatory These are the people that think they know what is best for the rest of us and so they would dearly love to see every regimen of our daily lives severely regulated because they claim to know what is “best” for the rest of us. And quite often what they think is best for the rest of us is something they choose not to do themselves. But, then, this is the nature of totalitarianism–medical or political.

If government can force us to be vaccinated, then what has changed since Obamacare forced us to buy health insurance many people didn’t want? Isn’t this the kind of thing Mr. Trump was elected to  prevent?

The decision to be vaccinated should be one between a person and his/her doctor, not something unilaterally forced upon us by a “benevolent” government. We will see what happens with all of this but as we go along it seems, more and more, that this Chinese virus is something that is being used to force more upon us than we are willing to go along with.

And I am beginning to wonder if that is the real name of this game.

A Different View of the Constitution

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

This is sort of a synopsis of an article I did for another blog several years ago. The thought about doing this came to me about five o’clock this morning. Often I am awake at that time of morning and often I say my first prayers for the day at that time.

Years ago, when I first became involved in conservative and patriotic endeavors I had a good friend and sometimes mentor, Pastor Ennio Cugini, of the Clayville Assembly (church) in North Scituate, Rhode Island, half a country and a whole culture away from where I live now. Pastor Cugini had a radio broadcast, The Victory Hour, which he used vigorously to expose the machinations of communists and socialists both in government and in the churches. He was an avid student of history.

I remember talking with him on the phone one time, way back in 1980. I was living in Indiana at the time. Pastor Cugini was telling me about a book he had just read, Patrick Henry–Patriot and Statesman by Norinne Dickson Campbell, published all the way back in 1969. It was a biography of Patrick Henry, and toward the end of the book, on page 322, she started to delve into Mr. Henry’s views on the U.S Constitution and why he was such an ardent foe of the ratification of that document in Virginia. That fact alone startled me because none of the “history” books I had ever read bothered to mention that. Nowadays I am not surprised, but then I was. In fact the history books never said much about Patrick Henry, himself, for that matter. All you ever got about him were excerpts from his “Give me liberty or give me death” speech, and after that he was pretty much dropped from the historical narrative. After hunting around a finding a copy of Miss Campbell’s book–the last one the book store had–I can understand why. Patrick Henry was politically incorrect!

Pastor Cugini said something I have never forgotten. He said that, while most conservatives wish we could just get back to following the Constitution, he had concluded, from Henry’s comments that “The Constitution is the  problem.” Miss Campbell’s book gives a lot  of Henry’s reasons for his opposition to it, as he  put them forth in Virginia in his opposition to ratification.

Henry was downright prescient in his predictions as to what would happen to this country if the Constitution was ratified. One of his most prophetic statements was that the union that was cobbled together by the Constitution would not last 100 years. He was right on–it didn’t. It didn’t last ninety years before the War of Northern Aggression followed.

One thing Henry had a problem with was the wording of the Preamble where it said “We the People” which he felt should have said “We the States” because it was states that eventually ratified the document. He also noted, correctly, that the delegates from the various states that assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 did not have instructions from their states to form a new government–all they had been delegated to do was to amend the Articles of Confederation–and so they way overstepped their bounds in what they ended up doing. Miss Campbell’s book on Patrick Henry was excellent. If you can still find a copy at a used book store or on (provided it hasn’t been reclassified at “Confederate flag material” grab it up before someone else beats you to it.

A more recently published biography of Patrick Henry has been written by David J. Vaughan and is entitled Give Me Liberty. Mr. Vaughan echoes much of what Miss Campbell had earlier stated.  He wrote: “Although the federal convention that met in Philadelphia in May of 1787 was authorized only to revise the existing Articles of Confederation, the delegates devised an entirely new constitution that was subsequently sent to the states for ratification. Those who favored the new Constitution were named Federalists while their opponents were called Anti-Federalists. Those labels were apt to be misleading, however. In fact, it would be to name the pro-Constitution faction as nationlists  and the opposing group  as the true Federalists. For it was Henry and those of similar sentiments who espoused the true sentiments of federalism–a federation of independent and sovereign states.

Vaughan also observed that the pro-Constitution group, led by James Madison, felt a stronger national government was needed. He said “The national government, they  believed, needed to power to tax and to regulate commerce…The way to give energy to the national government was to give it power, but this required a change in its form.  The Anti-Federalists were led by Henry, of course. They were generally united on the principle of confederation. In effect, Henry charged the Constitutional Convention with illegal proceedings. And he was right.”

This is an issue that has generated much controversy over the years, but I don’t think it hurts for us to take a closer look at the Anti-Federalist’s position on this.

The New Book On Lincoln

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s new book on Saint Abraham, The Problem With Lincoln, (Regnery Publishing) is scheduled to be released today, 7/7. I don’t know anything much about it yet, but Lord willing, I do plan to get it. Professor DiLorenzo’s other work on Lincoln, both books and articles, has been outstanding. This is why all those Lincoln-lovers out there hate his guts so much. He gives us the truth about the sainted Mr. Lincoln that they have been covering up for decades with all their hagiographies about Lincoln that they have made big bucks off of.

DiLorenzo identifies the Lincoln myth as “…the ideological cornerstone of the American state” and he says that “…it’s important that at least some Americans are not deluded by fantasies, myths, and superstitions about their own government.” And boy, do you get those in spades from the Lincoln lovers!

I have never forgotten the lady I talked to in Illinois years ago now (and her a homeschooling Mom) who said to me, when I tried to explain to her who Lincoln really was “I’m a great supporter of Lincoln and I am not going there with you.” She wasn’t even willing to listen. Her mind was made up  and so I could not confuse her with the facts. And I don’t say this to put her down, She was a good Christian lady, but in this area her mind was totally closed.

Unfortunately, this is where we are today. DiLorenzo, in an article, quoted Ira Cardiff, who was the author of The Deification of Lincoln way back in 1943. He noted Cardiff’s comment: “Americans are not at all interested in the truth about Lincoln…They desire a supernatural Lincoln, a Lincoln with none of the faults or frailties of the common man…” I wonder how Cardiff’s book made out. He has to have been a pioneer in telling the truth about Lincoln.

DiLorenzo has said that he is often asked “Why another book on Lincoln?” And he notes: “…there has been some very good and interesting research on Lincoln and his war published over the past eighteen years that I utilize in The Problem With Lincoln. Writing another book after eighteen years of additional research, reading, writing, and debating the subject makes this a very different book.” He’s right. There’s lots more out there now that there wasn’t back in 2002.

I have to recommend Professor DiLorenzo’s new book based on his previous work, of which I have read much. Right now it can be purchased at Amazon. Due to the possibilities of another shutdown over this Chinese virus that so many are urging on Washington and the various states right now, I am not sure if regular bookstores will even be allowed to stay open if they even are presently.

It should be interesting to see what Professor DiLorenzo has found regarding the last eighteen years of research on Lincoln. Knowing him, it should make for some interesting reading for those still willing to learn the truth.

Think Secession Will Stop Them? Think Again!

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Over the weekend I read a rather disturbing article on by Brandon Smith, published on 7/3. The title of it is Is America Heading For Civil War? Of  Course It Is…

Brandon Smith’s contention, and he may well have a point, is that we will end up fighting a civil war no matter what we do to try to prevent such an occurrence. He talks about the different groups in the country and how there is no rational way to get them together, as their differences, cultural and otherwise, are so great and the country is so fractured that you will never be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

He notes the left-wing mobs out there looting and burning and for the most part their opposition on the right, what we call “conservatives” do not seem to be doing much of anything. But it won’t stay that way forever. At some point, the left will have pushed too far and there will be a reaction.

He observes that there will be some who will try to separate the leftists from us ordinary folks in the vain hope that the separation will work for both sides. Many of us would call that secession. Smith claims that won’t work either. The leftists will never be satisfied with that because they don’t just want a bigger piece of the national pie–they want it all! 

Smith writes: “I fully realize that the third outcome is the most likely. War is probably inevitable. Why? Because collectivists and narcissists are never satisfied. They desire unlimited control over the lives of others and they will use any means to get that control no matter how destructive. Separating from them is only a stop-gap that allows us to take the superior position. Through peaceful migration we set the pace of this conflict. Eventually they will come after us, and there will be no doubt about our response then. There will be no way to spin the result in their favor, no way to play the victims.”

Some of you all may recall–we played this game once before–in 1861. Only then, the collectivists were able to make it look like it was really our fault when they were the instigators. Smith doesn’t seem to think it will happen that way this time. Only time will tell–and the collectivists control the “news” media, so the results may be iffy.

But Smith does seem to know the score. He observes: “As I posted last week, the political left is a tool for a greater agenda. They are being used as a weapon of chaos by globalist interests. This is not ‘conspiracy theory’ it is conspiracy fact. Millions of dollars have poured into Antifa and BLM related groups through elitist donors like George Soros and his Open Society Foundation as well as the Ford Foundation. Globalist institutions like these have  been influencing the extreme left and promoting identity politics for DECADES…” And he is right on the money here. This sort of thing has gone on at least since before the Viet Nam War, and probably before. See if you can get a book called The Strawberry Statement by James Michael Kunen, where he talks about the leftist radicals being given Rockefeller money to promote their leftist activities.

In looking forward to the 2020 election Smith writes: “If Trump ‘wins’, or delays the election, the left will riot and a civil war will be triggered. Conservatives will have to deal with the violence of the left while also dealing with the potential for martial law (which we cannot tolerate or support either). If Biden ‘wins’ it will be perceived by many conservatives who still think elections matter as a stolen presidency engineered through fraudulent ballot practices…If you believe in freedom, realize that fake conservatives that support government tyranny will be as much a problem as Marxist lefties.” This is truly a pressure from above and pressure from below situation. They plan to squeeze us both ways.

Or as the Confederate general in the movie Gods and Generals said “Get ready boys, they are a coming.” I would urge folks to go and check out Brandon Smith’s comments in this article. They are profoundly disturbing and we need to pray about our response to what may well end up being a real dicey situation for us and our children.

A Pleasant Fourth? With the Chaos In the Country Not Likely!

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Kurt Nimmo had an interesting article on his blog that Zero Hedge published today, 7/3. It was titled Year Zero in America: Pulling Down Statues Is Only The Beginning.

I am going to quote a few of his comments here, but I really hope many of you will check out the Zero Hedge page for today and read his entire article. Some good information there.

Mr.  Nimmo observed: “BLM and Antifa are now involved in the sabotage and dismantling of American history and culture. At its core, BLM is a revolutionary Marxist ideology, writes Andy Ngo, a journalist attacked and beaten by Antifa goons in Portland. ‘The US is getting a small preview of the anarchy Antifa has been agitating, training and preparing for. Ending law enforcement is a pre-condition for Antifa and BLM’s success in monopolizing violence’. Pulling down Confederate generals  and former presidents is only the beginning…” He’s right, and we in the Confederate Heritage Movement need to realize that they went after us first because they had the managed “news” media there to demonize us, something we have yet to overcome, though some are valiantly trying. But they ain’t about to quit with us.

Their aim is to totally destroy all American history and culture because they plan to be the ones who will teach our kids what to think. Not enough of us realize that yet, which is one reason we should get our kids out of public schools–but most of us won’t bother, We don’t really see the need–and so we will probably lose most of the next generation to Marxist ideology and then we will scratch our heads and wonder what in the world went wrong!

But. then, Nimmo made a very interesting, and accurate statement. He said “The BLM-Antifa Marxist Revolution under the cover of ending ‘systemic racism’ is controlled by the ruling elite through foundations, progressive think tanks, wealthy liberals–and corporate CEO’s you’d think know better. Success depends on the help of opportunistic Democrat politicians who believe raising a clenched fist and parroting BLM will get them elected or re-elected, thus perpetuating a system of crony capitalism and endless war behind a kinder and gentler Democratic façade that is now falling away.”

Nimmo then noted that socialism and communism are two sides of the same coin. You could also add fascism to that list because it belongs on the same coin  with the other two.

And then he quoted Gary Allen, who wrote the classic None Dare Call It Conspiracy back in 1976, a little book that sold 6 million copies at the time and is, now, posted on the internet. Look it up and read it. Won’t cost you a thin dime! And you will really learn a lot about who really controls socialism and communism in this country and in the world. It’s not a difficult read. It was written for the average person, otherwise I would not have understood it.

I admit, its nice to watch the fireworks, eat hot dogs and think about how “free” you are in America, but as I have noted in the past, there is a price for freedom and it seems that most in our day are not willing to pay that price. Somehow we seem to think that government will take care of us–and they will–but not in the way you want them to. One of our Founders said “He who trades liberty for security deserves neither.” In our day those who do such will get neither one and they won’t like what they do get. Meditate  just a little about this on this Fourth.

Are We Being Lied To About the Chinese Virus?

by Al Benson Jr.

I’ve read lots of very conflicting statements of late about the uptick in the number of Chinese virus cases in this country. There are those that want to shut the country down all over again and force the population to wear face masks, both at home and outside, forever, or at least until the very last case of this Chinese virus is officially cured. And you can bet all this will not be resolved at least until after the November election. And should Biden manage to, somehow, get the votes to become president, I’d be willing to bet the Chinese virus will no longer be a major problem. This is a slight exaggeration, but you know what I am talking about.

I guess you could say I am a little doubtful about the huge increase in numbers all of a sudden. In passing, I will note the big number of protests that went on in several states earlier this Spring regarding the blatant exercise of governmental power regarding the lockdowns and how they were being enforced. State governors and other potential tin pot dictators were out there in a mad  rush to curtail peoples liberties  and people finally got to the point where they had had enough–and so they protested.

As they protested, we started having all these BLM protests by the trained Marxists who were out there rampaging and burning cities and that pretty much stopped the legitimate protests by those who were just ordinary folks and not Marxists.

Recently I talked to a doctor about some of this and, to my surprise, he agreed with me. It sounded like he had done a little homework on his own. He noted how many of these deaths from the Chinese virus were actually deaths from other causes of people who had gotten the virus. It wasn’t the virus that killed them, even though they had it, it was some of the other medical problems they had, yet their deaths were being attributed to the Chinese virus.

In other words, someone has been padding the numbers. Gee, what a surprise! You don’t suppose someone on the left would do that for political reasons do you? Naw, never happen!

Just this morning I came across an interesting article on for May 31, 2020 about an interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and he had some rather interesting comments to make about Trump’s leading “health” expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci. I have read a few other comments about Dr. Fauci recently that have been, shall we say, less than charitable.  If you can find this site on the internet it is worth checking out. I won’t try to go into it all here, but I will give you one quote: “Also, be sure to check out the following episode of the Health Ranger Report in which Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, talks about how globalists like Anthony Fauci are using the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis to test how much tyranny Americans are willing to accept:” I’ve seen Mike Adams’ stuff before and he is usually on target. So if he lists Fauci as a globalist then we should consider that this is what he is.

Fauci has always tried to give the impression that he is totally apolitical. Yet he has defended the Marxist head of the World Health Organization so that should tell you something right there. Kennedy noted  in his interview that Fauci owns “Many, Many” patents on vaccines. This is an area I have not done a lot with, so I can’t verify Kennedy’s claim but it sure seems as if it would be an area worth looking into.

This all goes along with my growing suspicion that this sudden new outburst of this Chinese virus is every bit a much, or even more, political than it is medical.

Mr. Lincoln Wanted a War

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Years ago, in Hot Springs, Arkansas, I heard Professor Donald Livingston from Georgia give a speech in which he stated “Lincoln wanted a war.” Some who heard the speech may have been a bit shocked, but Dr. Livingston was right on the money. Lincoln did, indeed, want a war and he gave the country one in such a way as to make the South appear to be the aggressor. A master stroke on his part, but then he was devious, whereas most of the Southern politicians that had to try to deal with him were not.

Gene Kizer Jr. in his authoritative book Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States noted, on page 87, “Lincoln needed to start a war as fast as he could before Southerners completed trade and military alliances with England and other European countries, which they had been pursuing with great enthusiasm for months. With every second that went by the South got stronger and the North got weaker…He also worried about free states joining the South. The Confederate Constitution allowed it. Slavery was not required. Slavery was up to an individual state, and Southerners anticipated that many free states with economic ties to the South, especially along the Mississippi and in the West, would join the Confederacy.”

Kizer continued: “The South wanted to be Independent just as the colonists had wanted to be independent in 1776. The South wanted freedom and self-government. It was tired of 10 years of Northern hatred and terrorism…Lincoln knew that sending his warships and soldiers to Charleston during the most critical hour in American history would start the war. That’s why it was well publicized nationally, so everyone could get ready. He hoped the Confederates would fire first. Everything he did was designed to get the result.”

On page 223 he asked the rhetorical question “Could the Southerners be induced to attack Sumter, to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world?” It would appear, from footnote 178 on page 223 that there were, indeed, some on the North, along with Lincoln, who hoped for just such an occurrence.

So the evidence begins to mount that it was really Lincoln and some of this political cronies that wanted a war, and not the South, even though they were conned into firing the first shot.

Just today, 6/29, I read a penetrating article by Professor Thomas DiLorenzo which dealt with the book A Disease in the Public Mind–A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War, written by historian Thomas Fleming. Professor DiLorenzo noted in his article: “So, why was there a war, according to Thomas Fleming? First, there was an extreme  ‘malevolent envy’ of Southerners by the New England ‘Yankees’ who believed  they were God’s chosen people entitled to rule over not only  America but the world. Today, such people would be called ‘neocons.’ Second, there were twenty-five or so wealthy and very influential New England abolitionists who had  abandoned Christianity, condemned Jesus Christ, and adopted the mentally  deranged murderer of innocents, John Brown, a self-described communist, as their ‘savior,’  funding his terroristic bloodbaths.” Brown killed all manner of people in Kansas as a protest against slaveowners. Most of those he killed owned no slaves, but Brown planned on leaving a message, so they died anyway.

DiLorenzo then notes the similarities between Brown and those who supported him and today’s leftist revolutionaries and their mode of operation. The similarities between the two are striking. The leftists in Brown’s day wanted to destabilize the South. Today’s lefties want to destabilize the Trump administration and drive Trump from office The agenda is pretty much the same in both cases.

Whether we could end up with another “civil war” over this is something that remains to be seen, but I am afraid it is not out of the question.

Lincoln and the Republican Party Were Frauds

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Awhile back I reviewed Gene Kizer  Jr.s  informative book Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States. Mr. Kizer brought out some excellent points about the Republican Party in the early part of his book, things we maybe need to reflect on today in light of where the present Republican Party seems intent on taking us–down the same path the Democrats are.

We have all been dutifully informed, via our public school “history” books that the North went to war to free the slaves. I have often asked the question–if that is true, then why did the North not first free those slaves in the four slave states that, for one reason or another, had to remain in the Union? The silence in reply to my question has been deafening! This is one issue no one wants to touch, so they just ignore it and hope no one really important, with a big audience, ever bothers to bring it up.

Gene Kizer’s commentary on the early Republican Party is quite revelatory.  He says: “But ending slavery was not the goal of the Republican Party in 1856 and 1860. Taking over the government so they could rule the country for their own benefit and aggrandizement was their goal…Wendell Phillips proudly claimed that the Republican Party is the first sectional party in American history and is the party of the North pledged against the South. For the entire decade of the 1850s, Republicans used the most virulent hatred against the South to rally their votes. Republicans celebrated John Brown’s terrorism and murder of Southerners and Republicans endorsed Hinton Helper’s The Impending Crisis of the South as a campaign document.” Helper’s book advocated slaves murdering their masters. This was the line the Republicans were pushing in the 1850s.

Can you begin now to understand why the South wanted out of this Union? The party now in power was advocating their destruction. I can’t think of a better reason for wanting out. Kizer observed: “Republicans were not a great political movement trying to solve the difficult slavery issue with good will. Most people in the North (95 to 98% according to historians Lee Benson and Gavin Wright)  were not abolitionists. They did not care about freeing the slaves who would then come North and be job competition. No Republicans could be elected in the North on the platform of directly ending slavery but they could agitate on slavery in the West with good results…Neither slaves nor free blacks were welcome in Lincoln’s West.”

The concern over the expansion of slavery in the West was yet another Republican faux issue. Kizer noted that the territory of New Mexico had been open to slavery for ten years and in that decade there was a grand total of twenty nine slaves there in 1860.

Historian Charles Ramsdell had noted that slavery had about reached its peak by 1860 and “…must shortly have begun to decline, for the economic forces which had carried it into the region west of the Mississippi had about reached their maximum effectiveness. It could not go forward in any direction and was losing ground along its northern border…It is a great irony that Northern anti-slavery  was mostly economic or racist.” Look at what Ramsdell is telling you here. By 1860 slavery was beginning to be on the way out. So why would the North then fight a war to get rid of it? All they had to do was to wait and eventually it would have died a natural death.

And Kizer also noted that “The reason Lincoln needed to preserve the Union  was because, without it, the North faced economic annihilation, the magnitude of which easily made war preferable…By the time Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861 there was gloom, despair and panic in the North with thousands of business failures, hundreds of thousands of people out of work, serious trouble with the stock market, threatened runs on banks, and Northern ship captains heading South because of the South’s low tariff. There was no talk whatsoever of ending slavery.”

Almost seems like this situation we have today with this Chinese virus with the Deep State trying to keep the country shut down and the economy in tatters–and all so they can make sure Trump doesn’t get a second term. They need to get rid of him because he is not “one of the boys.” And the Republicans here are every bit as guilty as the Democrats because the Deep State controls both parties. Trump isn’t one of the boys–Lincoln was!

The Republicans would not protect the South in 1860, but rather planned to make war on it. The Republicans today refuse to protect us from the Democrats. They tell us they will, but more and more, their actions belie  their words. When the Republicans start acting like the Democrats then you better watch out–but also learn from history. The original Republican Party was not conservative–they were socialists. It seems in our day they are headed back toward their origins and we need to keep an eye on that because it will affect us all, and our children.

Trite Comments About Sigel

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I am in the process of rereading The Last Full Measure by Jeff Shaara. It is a historical fiction book about the last two years of the War of Northern Aggression after Gettysburg. Shaara is an entertaining writer and he has obviously had to do quite a bit of research on his subject to make it believable to discerning readers.

Having said that does not mean, by any means, that I agree with all of his commentary or suppositions.

When I first read the book, I made a few notes in the flyleaf about some things that caught my attention. On page 2 he makes brief comments about some of the men who fought for the North. He says: “Some are barely Americans at all, expatriates and immigrants from Europe, led by officers who do not speak English.” Anyone who knows the history knows who he is talking about here, the socialist and communist Forty-eighters from all over Europe who came here to try to push their agenda on this country because they had not been able to make it work in Europe. But Shaara does not tell  us any of that. He ignores it as though it didn’t exist. Indeed, his readers are not supposed to realize it did exist and he ain’t about to let them know. He would not have had to go into great detail. In about three sentences he could have at least given us a brief overview of them. If he’s done any homework at all he has to be aware of who these guys were, yet he says nothing.

On page 88 he mentions Franz Sigel, one of Lincoln’s socialist generals. Of Sigel he only says: “He was a graduate of the German Military Academy, an experienced fighter who had emigrated himself because he happened to pick the wrong side in a brief revolution.” He doesn’t tell you much does he? You are not supposed to realize who Sigel and the other Forty-eighters really were. There was much more to Sigel and his socialist comrades than you get from these perfunctory comments. Sigel just didn’t “pick the wrong side in a brief revolution.” Shaara’s “brief revolution” rocked the entire European continent in 1848-49 and that’s why so many of its participants ended up here, in the North. Austria, Hungary, Italy and Germany, along with others were all involved in Shaara’s “brief revolution” which literally swept through much of Europe.

Shaara does the exact same thing many authors do when writing about the War, he downplays the socialist involvement of many in the North, including many high officers in Lincoln’s armies because that sort of information does not fit the agenda of a righteous North fighting to end evil slavery in the evil South. And if you are going to get anything about the War and the personalities involved in it published in this day and age by any big company you already realize that you have to approach this topic from the position that the North was righteous and virtuous and the South evil and venal. Thinking people realize that isn’t the case, but if you want your stuff out there for a mass audience then you better learn to write it that way, and damn the facts!

If you want to find out the truth about Franz Sigel, who, by the way, was no military whiz kid, you need to read Donnie Kennedy’s and my book Lincoln’s Marxists and I am not trying to make money off of it when I say that. There are no more royalties to be made off our book. However, if you want to begin to see what a large part of the War of Northern Aggression was really all about then you need to read this book.

Franz Sigel was part of an orchestrated push to install socialist and/or communist governments in most of the European countries in 1848-49–and that’s what the Forty-eighters had as their agenda when they came to America. With Lincoln in the White House they were able to accomplish quite a bit of that, both in his administration and those that followed it. We still live with the results of that in our day and it’s time we started to realize that.

Too Little Too Late!

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Just noticed this morning an article about how the National Guard is being mobilized to protect statues in Washington D. C. and in Wisconsin. In Washington some leftist protesters tried, unsuccessfully, to topple a stature of Andrew Jackson and in Wisconsin I guess they managed to pull down a statue of some abolitionist. At least that’s they way I heard it.

For weeks now they have been pulling down statues of any historical personage who happened to have white skin, not just Confederates but others as well.  Even some who opposed slavery have had their monuments trashed.

I haven’t heard anything more about those statues of Marx and Lenin in Oregon and Washington. How much you want to bet they are still up? Even a statue of Ulysses S. Grant was torn down, although Grant had been a slave owner and had refused to free his slaves until forced to do so by the 13th Amendment. His contention for waiting so long to turn loose of his slaves was “good help is hard to find.”

I also heard that President Trump issued an executive order protecting monuments, at least monuments of veterans, and I am all for that, but I am beginning to wonder why it took so long to get around to doing this.

Now that statues for Yankees and abolitionists are being torn down, suddenly we see a need to stop this madness. What about when Confederate statues and monuments were being torn down and toppled? And if we are going to protect statues of veterans, how many of those men who ended up being Confederates had been in the Union army before Lincoln became the federal dictator, or maybe it was Stanton who was the federal dictator and Lincoln only the willing accomplice.

How many Confederate statues ended up being destroyed and no one said much of anything? Now that the abolitionist statues are being town down suddenly we need to halt all this because suddenly, we are destroying the wrong history! And you can hardly expect the mindless Marxists who are destroying all the statues to differentiate between them. All they know is “If he’s white, pull him down.”  They wouldn’t know an abolitionist from a bull frog!

I wonder if the few remaining Confederate statues and monuments that are still up someplace will be protected by this new ban that seems to me to almost be too little too late.