Religious Humanists Hate Confederates

By Al Benson Jr.

It seems that the professional South-haters up North must be running out of new material to verbally bash the South over the head with so they have fallen back to attacking Andersonville Prison in Georgia again.

A recent article by John J. Dunphy that appeared in The Telegraph in Alton, Illinois trotted out all the old anti-Andersonville stories about prisoner abuse and starving prisoners and what a wretched man Andersonville’s commander Captain Henry Wirz was. If you’ve read this kind of thing once you’ve read it a dozen times. I notice those who roundly trash Andersonville and Captain Wirz have no comments to make about Fort Delaware and its commander, socialist Albin Schoepf, who was one of “Lincoln’s Marxists.” Lonnie Speer, in his book Portals to Hell  tells of Fort Delaware. He says “Albin Francisco Schoepf took over command and served in this capacity until the end of the war. Schoepf allowed his subordinates unrestrained control inside the compound and it eventually evolved into the most brutal POW institution in America.” So the Yankees’ Fort Delaware evolved into “the most brutal POW institution in America.” Gee, wonder how the politically correct missed that little fact. Probably because they weren’t looking too hard and they hope you don’t either. Actually, the miserable conditions Mr. Dunphy talks about at Andersonville existed in just about all the Northern POW camps as well—Point Lookout, Elmira, Camp Douglas—you name it, and most of the conditions at Andersonville were present, which made it even worse because the North had the resources to alleviate such conditions. The South did not.

Back to Captain Wirz and Andersonville. James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy in their best selling book The South Was Right dealt with Captain Wirz’s “trial” as a Confederate war criminal and brought out some interesting information the lap dog media would just as soon we overlook. Wirz was charged with thirteen allegations of murder “…but not a single murder victim was named! How could a man murder thirteen people in the presence of several thousand witnesses (who were the fellow comrades of the alleged victims) and yet no one could remember a single victim’s name!…One of the unnamed victims that Wirz was convicted of murdering was supposedly killed on February 1, 1864. Captain (later Major) Wirz did not arrive in Andersonville until the following month, March of 1864. In addition, Yankee justice convicted him of the murder of two unnamed prisoners in August of 1864. During the time in question, Wirz was away from the camp on sick leave. Of the 160 witnesses called by the prosecution, 145 testified that they had no personal knowledge of Wirz ever killing or mistreating anyone. Only one could give the name of a prisoner allegedly killed by Wirz. The problem with his testimony was that the date given by the witness did not agree with any date used in the charges against Wirz. The court ‘corrected’ this situation by simply changing the date in the indictment to match the testimony already given!” The Kennedys have observed that Mr. Lincoln’s Secretary of War, the inestimable Edwin Stanton, “…noted that a higher percentage of Southern POW’s died while in Yankee camps than did Northern POW’s held by the South. Still the mythmakers have continued to select only the facts that they wish preserved in their official history.” And history should be in quotes!

A friend in Southern Illinois sent me a copy of Dunphy’s article and as I read, his name rang a little bell in the back of my head. I’d heard that name before, years ago, when I was doing research for a Sunday School class on Humanism that I taught while we were living in Indiana. I had gone to the local library where they had copies of a magazine called The Humanist.

Seems that, in 1983, Dunphy wrote what has been described as an “award winning essay” for that magazine. He made a couple statements that most people other than Humanists are hardly aware of. He said: “I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects that spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an area of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved.” Read Mr. Dunphy’s quote again and let it begin to sink in. Another article I found noted that John Dewey, the early 20th century socialist education guru, was also a signer of the Humanist Manifesto.

So Mr. Dunphy views the public school classroom as the new battleground being fought over by “the rotting corpse of Christianity” and the “resplendent” new (it really isn’t new, it’s just been repackaged) faith of humanism. He’s right about one thing, the public school classroom is a battleground between competing worldviews. Problem is that most Christians who choose to put their kids in public schools have yet to realize what those schools are there for—and brother, it ain’t real education. Mr. Dunphy realizes what the public school is there for. Sadly, most Christians have yet to get the first clue.

So it would seem that Mr. Dunphy of Humanist fame and glory also has a problem with anything that is Southern or Confederate-related. Should that really surprise you? How many people reading his anti-Andersonville commentary will even realize that this is the same man who celebrates what he calls “the rotting corpse of Christianity”? Most people won’t make the connection because Mr. Dunphy’s “change agent” teachers have so dumbed them down that they are hardly capable of thinking about anything more remote than the next “Reality show” on the tube. The “teachers” Mr. Dunphy promotes have “proselytized” their students into mindless robots almost totally incapable of rational thought and they still want even more of our money for yet more of this “quality education” they have been promising for decades now.

You don’t have to look too far to find lots of “South-haters” like Mr. Dunphy. What you all need to start doing when you run across them is to do some research and check into their backgrounds. The majority of them will be anti-Christian to one degree or another, which explains why they take every opportunity they can to trash the South and Confederate history.

Before the start of the War of Northern Aggression the South still had a basically Christian culture and worldview, whereas the North had apostatized long before. In spite of the inroads of political correctness promoted by public schools the South still has more of a Christian worldview than much of the rest of the country.

There was an article done recently about a Gallup Poll which listed the ten most religious states and the ten least religious states in the Union. The ten most religious states, with the exception of Utah were—guess where? All in the South. Six of the least religious states were in the North, with a couple others in the Far West. That fact alone ought to tell you why most Humanists, Unitarians, liberals and “progressives” constantly attack the South and try to undermine its culture. As I said earlier, start checking the backgrounds of some of the South-bashers and you will find that a pattern emerges as to their peculiar theologies and worldviews.

Mayor of Birmingham Will Release Money To Pay For Leftist’s Unpaid Funeral Bills

By Al Benson Jr.

According to an article on http://blog.al.com/spotnews the Mayor of Birmingham, Alabama “will release city funds to pay disputed expenses associated with the funeral of the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth” who died in 2011. The Mayor stated: “As Mayor of the City of Birmingham, I have a responsibility to the great legacy of Rev. Shuttlesworth and a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers.” The Mayor is working with a local Baptist church as a “fiscal agent for outstanding invoices owed as a result of the Shuttlesworth funeral.”

You have to wonder why the Mayor feels a “fiduciary responsibility” to the taxpayers to spend their money on this man’s funeral expenses. If private groups want to undertake this project that’s fine. They should be free to do so, but why does the city have to expend funds for it, especially after you check out Rev. Shuttlesworth’s background. Years ago I picked up a set of two booklets, parts one and two, entitled The Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities for the State of Louisiana, more simply called “The Louisiana Report.” Rev. Shuttlesworth is rather prominently mentioned in it. The report dealt with an organization called The Southern Conference Educational Fund. This was a Communist front group that was formed by Dr. James A. Dombrowski, who was the Executive Director, and Mr. and Mrs. Carl Braden of Louisville, Kentucky. The question was asked in this booklet” “Have these people ever been identified in any way as Communists?” The man testifying replied: “They have all been identified in sworn testimony as Communist Party members.” So this is Communist Party members who have formed a Communist front group. The question was then asked as to who else took part in the overall management of the group. The witness answered: “Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, who has been recently appointed President of this organization, replacing Aubrey Williams…”

The witness was then asked about Rev. Shuttlesworth’s background and he answered: “Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth was responsible for the formation of the M.I.A., the Montgomery Improvement Association…In 1941 he was arrested and pled guilty in District Court in the State of Alabama to the illegal distillation of whiskey, commonly known as moonshining.” He pled guilty, and got a suspended sentence. The witness also observed that: “Fred Shuttlesworth has been previously identified as Vice-President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and has been affiliated with several Communist-front organizations.” On the masthead of the newspaper for the Southern Conference Educational Fund he was listed as President of that Communist-front group.

In Alan Stang’s insightful book It’s Very Simple–The true story of Civil Rights  Rev. Shuttlesworth is also mentioned. On page 101 of Alan Stang’s book, and continuing onto page 102 he has written: “The new president of SCEF is the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth. Fred Shuttlesworth has been affiliated with several Communist front organizations…The next document is a letter dated September 21, 1960 from Carl Braden to James A. Dombrowski. It shows that Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, ex-convict leader of the ‘Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights’…was using the Bradens to write his news releases, obviously because the Bradens were, and are, highly skilled professional propagandists…” On pages 112, 113 Mr. Stang noted: The vice-president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference is the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth. And the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth is the new president of the Southern Conference Educational Fund (also known as the Southern Conference for Human Welfare—they are the same organization), which is a Communist front, and whose field director, Carl Braden, is a national sponsor of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which is also a Communist front.”

I could go more into the Southern Christian Leadership Conference but I think those who read this will get the idea. The SCLC had several more lesser luminaries that had Communist affiliations and it was, according to The Louisiana Report stated that the SCLC was “…substantially under the control of the Communist Party through the influence of the Southern Conference Educational Fund and the Communists that manage it.” And remember that Shuttlesworth was president of SCEF and vice-president of the SCLC, so there was quite a connection there.

With that background, we ought to be asking why the city of Birmingham feels obligated to chip in for this man’s funeral expenxes.
We also ought to be asking if men and organizations like this are truly representative of the Civil Rights Movement as a whole. Outside of investigative writers like Alan Stang, almost no one has dared to plumb the depths of this Movement to find out who was really involved or anything about their backgrounds. People have done the same with the Civil Rights Movement as they have with Obama’s amazing lack of availability when it comes to any written records about him throughout his life—they have seen no evil, heard no evil, and in the case of the “news” media, have spoken no evil.

More digging needs to be done to find out where those involved really were coming from and you can bet the “news” media ain’t about to do it so others will have to.

What interest did the Communists have in the Civil Right Movement? You can bet it wasn’t the welfare of black folks. So did they plan to use it as one of their vehicles for revolution in this country–and are they still doing that under different names?

In a Colorblind Society No Whites Need Apply

By Al Benson Jr.

A recent article by Bobby Eberle on http://www.gopusa.com has observed that: “As we strive for a truly colorblind society, it’s quite apparent that the ones who hold us back are the ones that scream the loudest about equality…But, just like Barack Obama plays the race card over and over again, we have another example to point to. This time it’s an elementary school in Denver that offers a tutoring program…unless you are white. As reported by Denver’s CBS 4, the tutoring program at Mission Viejo Elementary School in Aurora has come under fire, because it was not designed, nod did it welcome, all kids. If your child was white and needed tutoring, you were out of luck.”

This is so typical of the actions of the “equality nuts” that it should not surprise us, especially in a public school. It’s the same old story—all the animals in this barnyard are equal but some are more equal than others. The black radicals have, over the decades, complained that people should be judged by the “content of their character and not the color of their skin.” That noble sentiment withers on the vine when they get to the point where they feel they can dominate a society or a particular part of society. So at this school in Aurora (isn’t that where that shooting took place last summer? In the “gun free zone” in the theater?) we now have black, brown, and yellow are beautiful but white is not allowed.

One white lady brought her 10-year old daughter into the class because she needed tutoring, only to be told basically that no whites need apply. This tutoring program was designed for “children of color” so if you are white, get lost! The Mom complained to the school principal. She said “We have come so far in all of these years to show everybody that everyone is equal, that everyone should be treated equally…this is a form of bullying.” You better believe it is lady. Moreover, you better get used to it because in public schools, as in other politically correct institutions this is the way it will be for the foreseeable future.

As usual the blame game got played when the heat was on. The school district said the principal was at fault for this program. Did he just do it on his own? The school district was totally ignorant of this tutoring program? The functionaries in most public school systems today don’t do anything without approval so you have to wonder about this.

The article noted that “This is breathtaking in its stupidity…Just there always need to be an emphasis put on race?…” Yes there does, because for many of these people race is what it’s all about. Let’s don’t kid ourselves. It’s not about equal opportunity or equality—it’s about race—which races will dominate and which will be subservient.
Apparently there was some rather negative reaction to this situation because the principal has now issued a new letter about the program stating that it is open to all kids, even white ones.

This situation is, unfortunately, symptomatic of much of what passes for education in this country. Recently http://www.bizpacreview.com carried an article entitled University sponsors ‘unfair to be white’ campaign. This little bit of white guilt manipulation is being sponsored at the University of Wisconsin—Superior, and it is teaching students that it is “unfair” to be white. The article notes: “A university spokesman confirmed that the ‘Un-Fair Campaign’ was designed to teach students that systems and institutions are set up for us (whites) and…they are unfair. The official website touts the campaign slogan as ‘it’s hard to see racism when you’re White.’” There’s that old Trotskyite term “racism” in there again. All the better to make you feel guilty again.

This group has produced posters featuring a number of white folks with such slogans as “is white skin really a fair skin?” inked onto their faces. It would seem that this sort of thing is part of what passes for education at some “institutions of higher learning.”

Many colleges, like regular public schools, are little more than indoctrination centers where kids are sent by unknowing parents to be schooled in the current politically correct propaganda. I guess we are all now supposed to grovel in the dirt before people of color to show the proper amount of shame for being white—right? That seems to be the way it works anymore.
You’ll pardon me if I don’t play that game. Racially, God made everyone what they are. He chose their race for them whatever it happens to be and no one should feel guilty because he is white, just like no one should feel guilty if he is black.

However the guilt manipulators have no intention of quitting. It’s all part of the “hey, hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go” program. Supposedly if you are white you are responsible for all the evils in the world. I wonder how these people would blame whites for the thousands of human sacrifices committed by Central American Indians before the whites ever showed their faces in Central America. Or the blacks in Africa that were constantly at war with one another and sold those they captured to Muslim slave traders. I’m sure if we twist the facts around enough and continue to torture rational thought we can find some way to make it Whitey’s fault.

These folks seem to forget that the whole human race, not only whites but also all other races, are infected with human sin as descendants of Adam. Or maybe they think that only whites have this problem and all other races were born perfect, without sin. If they believe that I have a bridge in the Arizona desert I’d love to sell them—the price is reasonable too.

I recall reading a short while ago about an “education” provider that claimed whites were racist because they ate peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. By her rational then Mexicans should be racist because they eat tacos, but no, it doesn’t work that way in the politically correct world—only the whites are racist and they are racist for no other reason than the fact that they exist.
This is the same game some colleges play with Southern kids, trying to make them feel guilty for being Southerners or talking with a Southern accent. In the final analysis most of this supposed anti-racism (actually it’s nothing more than reverse prejudice) is directed at whites and Christians.

When they want to rid the world of “Western Civ” what they actually want to do is to rid the world of white Christian influence because that’s what they really hate. Unfortunately many Christians seem more than willing to sit passively and let them do it. Again, you’ll pardon me if I refuse to play this game. I remember, years back now, an Episcopal priest I knew in Wisconsin said to me “Al you and I will never be politically correct.” I think he was right.

Lincoln’s Deep Pink Assistant Secretary of War

By Al Benson Jr.

Should you happen to run across the name of Charles A. Dana in a “history” book somewhere what you will probably find out is that he was assistant secretary of war in the Lincoln administration—and that’s most likely all you will find out. Or you may find out, in an exceptional “history” book, that he had been associated with Horace Greeley in the publication of Greeley’s New York Tribune. Again, they won’t tell you anymore than that. After all, the educational rationale seems to be that people don’t really need to know this stuff—it’s only old history.

The fly in the buttermilk is that often “old history” comes back to haunt us. True, we can’t go back and change it, but if we are aware of what really happened we can work to make sure we don’t repeat the same error. If we don’t know then we may well do the same stupid thing—over and over again.

Donnie Kennedy and I, in our book Lincoln’s Marxists, (Pelican Publishing, Gretna, Louisiana) sought to show conclusively that socialism and communism had been alive and well in this country long before anyone believed it was, in fact well over 100 years before anyone believed it was.

Charles A. Dana, Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war is a prime example. In his earlier years Dana had been associated with Brook Farm in West Roxbury, Massachusetts. Brook Farm was yet another communistic endeavor in this country in the early 1840s that didn’t make it. It folded in 1847. However, one of Brook Farm’s projects was a left-of-center publication called The Harbinger. Among those who wrote for this periodical was George Ripley and Charles A. Dana.

After Brook Farm had folded Dana went to work for Horace Greeley’s  New York Tribune. As part of his work there Dana went to Europe in 1848 (what a coincidence!) where he covered the 1848 socialist and communist revolts, not only for the Tribune but for other papers as well. At that time he became well acquainted with Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and who knows who else in the Forty-eighter movement. Upon his return to this country in 1849 he was made managing editor under Greeley for the Tribune. Should you wonder why a friend of Karl Marx was made managing editor for Greeley’s newspaper you could do a little digging and find out that Horace Greeley was also a socialist—something else your “history” books probably didn’t pass along to you. I remember seeing Greeley’s name in history books all through my growing-up years and nowhere was there a mention of his socialist proclivities.

As proof of his affinity for Karl Marx, Charles Dana hired Marx to write columns for Greeley’s paper in 1851. He was to be a regular correspondent. Marx’s command of the English language wasn’t the greatest and so his friend, Engels, ended up writing many of his columns for him, but Marx was the one that was paid for them. So typical of Marxism in general—you do the work and I get the rewards! Since Greeley’s paper was one of the most influential in this country what Dana had done was to give Karl Marx an open pipeline to reach the people of America with his propaganda.

Dana and Greeley parted company in 1862 over some dispute, at which point Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, another sterling character, snapped up Dana and made him “Special Investigating Agent” for the War Department. Dana spent a lot of time with Grant’s army and ended up recommending that Grant be placed in command of all the Union armies. I have often wondered what Dana, a socialist, saw in Grant that made him recommend him. Needless to say, the “historians” don’t tell us.
As we noted in Lincoln’s Marxists  “…we have a New York newspaper, owned by a socialist (Greeley), publishing articles written by the father of modern communism (Marx), who had been hired to write for Greeley’s paper by still another man with socialist leanings (Dana). What an interesting mix!” And you mean to tell me we had no problems with socialism and communism in this country until Roosevelt in the 1930s? Hogwash! Anyone telling you that is gypping you out of 100 years of real history!

According to http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org  Dana was named as Assistant Secretary of War in 1864 and served until 1865 in that capacity. James Harrison Wilson, who wrote a biography of Dana, wrote that Lincoln “appears to have taken Dana into his utmost confidence… and to have consulted with him fully about the amendment to the Constitution to legalize the abolition of slavery…” Which means that the Emancipation Proclamation was little more than war propaganda and Lincoln knew it. Too bad he couldn’t have told our present day “historians.” So we have a man who was a socialist and friend of Karl Marx who had Lincoln’s “utmost confidence.”

We’ve had lots of socialist influence in this country long before we were supposed to have had it according to the historians. We also had Forty-eighter Carl Schurz who ended up being the Secretary of the Interior in the Hayes administration and we had Robert Dale Owen, the son of socialist Robert Owen, who helped craft the infamous 14th Amendment. Do you wonder why your public school “history” books never bother to mention any of this? It’s because you and your kids are not supposed to know about it. How much have the socialists and communists helped to influence the direction this country has gone in since the Lincoln administration? More than you are supposed to be aware of. With this kind of thing going on since the early 1860s is it any wonder why we now have an Obama administration? Folks, stop and think about it for a bit. Wake up and smell the coffee before it is banned for us ordinary folks along with our guns.

We’ve Got “The Obama File” How About The Lincoln File?

By Al Benson Jr.

One place among many on the Internet that people can check out Mr. Obama’s Marxist proclivities is a site called “The Obama File.” It goes into great detail about many things, including Obama’s early life and early Marxist associations, some going back to when he was still a child. These associations shaped him into a dedicated Marxist and one willing to be manipulated by the Council on Foreign Relations and other world government groups.

Perhaps it would behoove some dedicated Southern patriot to put something together in the same vein about Abraham Lincoln and title it “The Lincoln File.” There is lots of information out there about Lincoln that illustrates the decidedly leftist direction he traveled in throughout his life. However there are some that do not wish to see such information proclaimed from the housetops because if that happened it might stifle the sales they realize from their cottage industry of glorifying the “great emancipator” and if people stop buying the books—well you know how that goes.

There are books available now, some of which I would like to read and have not been able to yet, that ask questions about Obama’s actual parentage, place of birth, etc. There are many questions that have never been answered about the man and at this date it is more than apparent that he has no intention of shedding any light on the subject. He chides others who will not release personal information about themselves while steadfastly refusing to release anything about himself. Outside of that highly questionable “birth certificate” he finally released there has been nothing else forthcoming and there most likely will not be unless he does something to embarrass his CFR handlers and if he does that, who know what might show up as chastisement?

In spite of all the stock urban legends we have been fed about Abraham Lincoln, some of his early years are also shrouded in a fuzzy haze. There are some that claim he was not born in that little log cabin in Kentucky that we all saw pictures of in our public school history books. My wife and I went to visit that Kentucky cabin once several years ago. It looked like an awfully small place to raise a family as I recall and I wondered about that at the time.

Several years ago a Christian lady in South Carolina (now gone to be with the Lord) sent me a copy of an old book printed back in 1940 called The Eugenics of President Abraham Lincoln. The book was written by James Caswell Coggins, A.M., S.T.D., Ph.D., LL.D., the founder and first President of Atlantic Christian College in Wilson, North Carolina. Rev. Coggins wrote several other books, but for our purposes this is the one we need to dwell on.

Rev. Coggins, in this book, contended that Abraham Lincoln was the illegitimate son of one Abraham Enloe of western North Carolina. Rev. Coggins wrote, on page 20 that: “For ninty years (about forty years ago this book was written), or thereabout, from the time it is said that Abraham Lincoln was begotten or born, as the case was, and the breeze occurred in the Enloe home, there has subsisted among the honest people at the center of authority a lively tradition that Abraham, the head of the Enloe family, was Lincoln’s father by Nancy Hanks, who occupied the position of servant-girl in the Enloe household.” And there is the testimony of Captain Ep. Everett, who lived within twelve miles of the Enloe homestead. He said: “In the time of the war, in conversation with old and reliable citizens of this section, I learned that Abe Lincoln’s mother, Nancy Hanks, once lived in the family of Abe Enloe and was sent from there to Kentucky to be delivered of a child. The cause of her removal to Kentucky was a threatened row between Abe Enloe and old Mrs. Enloe, his wife.” Understand that, in writing this, Rev. Coggins was not trying to criticize or “expose” Abraham Lincoln who he actually admired and respected.

A website http://www.bosticlincolncenter.com has stated much the same thing. In an article entitled Abraham Lincoln, A North Carolinian  on this site it states: “There is substantial evidence that Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, was born not in Kentucky, but on Puzzle Creek near Bostic, North Carolina, in Rutherford County. Abraham Lincoln’s mother, Nancy Hanks was ‘bound out’ into the care of the Abraham Enloe family, who lived in Rutherford County before moving to Oconaluftee near Cherokee, North Carolina. She was a member of the Concord Baptist Church near Bostic prior to and after the birth of the baby, that she named Abraham. She left the area with ‘Little Abe’ and married Tom Lincoln in Kentucky where Jesse Head, the minister who performed the ceremony, wrote of the young boy’s presence.” This same article also mentioned another book The Tarheel Lincoln  by Jerry Goodnight and Richard Eller, published in 2003.

Can I personally “prove” any of this? No, I can’t, but from what I have seen and read and from the testimonies of those much closer to the scene than I will ever be, I think that is a good chance some of this might well be accurate. This theory probably has more validity than that “birth certificate” the Obama administration posted on the Internet for the gullible.
There seem to be other things in Lincoln’s early years that we have not been told very much about. For instance, there was his admiration for socialist Robert Owen and his colony in New Harmony, Indiana. Carl Sandburg wrote about that, all too briefly.

Donnie Kennedy and I noted this in our book Lincoln’s Marxists (Pelican Publishing, Gretna, Louisiana)  that: “…in chapter twenty-two of Sandburg’s first volume, Sandburg mentioned Robert Owen, a rich ‘English businessman’ who bought land in New Harmony, Indiana. He mentioned that Owen gave a speech before Congress explaining how he and his fellow ‘reformers’ would champion the cause of finding a new way for people to live together and how, under this new system fighting, cheating, and exploitation of one’s fellow man would cease…According to Sandburg, ‘The scheme lighted up Lincoln’s heart.” It turned out that Owen’s “new way” to live together was socialism and it never worked, as it never will work. Most socialist communities end up failing miserably and New Harmony was no exception. Sandburg thought it was so great because he, like Lincoln, was a socialist in his heart—and in his politics. You think Lincoln didn’t know what New Harmony was all about? Think again.

We have been told that Lincoln was a political disciple of Henry Clay, but we’ve not been told all that much about Mr. Clay and so we don’t, in most cases, understand the significance of that. Thomas DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln  several years ago wrote an article which I saved when I saw it. It was entitled Henry Clay–national socialist. In all the years since Professor DiLorenzo wrote that article I have never had cause to disagree with him. In The Real Lincoln  he wrote: “But to understand the real Lincoln one must realize during his twenty-eight years in politics before becoming president, he was almost single-mindedly devoted to an economic agenda that Henry Clay labeled ‘the American System.’ From the very first day in 1832 when he announced that he was running for the state legislature in Illinois, Lincoln expressed his devotion to the cause of protectionist tariffs, taxpayer subsidies for railroads and other corporations (‘internal improvements’) and the nationalization of the money supply to help pay for the subsidies…Lincoln thought of himself as the heir to the Hamiltonian political tradition, which sought a much more centralized governmental system, one that would plan economic development with corporate subsidies financed by protectionist tariffs and the printing of money by the central government.” In other words Lincoln envisioned what we have today—corporate fascism parading as “progress.”

Lincoln’s love affair with socialism hardly ended there. Before the War of Northern Aggression was commenced, a goodly part of the Union army was made up of socialist and communist revolutionaries from the failed socialist revolutions in Europe.

Once the War broke out a whole host of socialist and communist personalities in this country ended up as Major Generals and Brigadier Generals in Lincoln’s armies. In fact, one of the most well-known of them, Charles A. Dana, a friend of Karl Marx and Joseph Weydemeyer, (also a Communist officer in the Union Army), even rose to the level of Assistant Secretary of War in the Lincoln administration. Needless to say our “history” books have never bothered to mention any of this, nor have they ever mentioned Lincoln’s affinity for socialism. The International Workingman’s Association in London (a socialist organization) even sent Lincoln a congratulatory letter upon his re-election in 1864. One of the main signatories of the letter was Karl Marx. Again, for some of this please check out Lincoln’s Marxists.

Lincoln may not have been any kind of card-carrying Communist in the sense that we understand today, but he had the mindset and the worldview they had—centralization of all power in the hands of “the people” (government). That’s a view shared by Mr. Obama today.

All this is the type of material about Lincoln that your “history” books will never touch. And you will get eye strain trying to find out about the socialist and communist involvement in both his armies and in the early Republican Party. That’s a well-kept secret for the most part—unless you know where to look. The “history” books will give you names, but never connections.

So, like Obama, Mr. Lincoln’s real origins and viewpoints are swept under the rug, never to be discussed—down the “memory hole” as it were. After all, it’s only history and who needs to know how that might affect our lives today, especially if we knew the truth, right?

The Lincoln/Corwin “keep your slaves” Amendment

by Al Benson Jr.

Seeing that we have arrived at February, the birth month of the “great emancipator” we will, no doubt, be treated for much of this month to the same type of propaganda from the media that our kids are fed in public schools. They will dutifully inform us that Lincoln “freed” the slaves (he freed no one). This is the man, they will tell us, who supposedly had a fond spot in his heart for all black folks (actually he was a flaming racialist) yet black people continue to revere his name today as though he were Moses leading them through the Red Sea. Actually Lincoln did lead them, and the rest of us through the “Red” sea. Most just don’t have the sense to realize that yet.

In the War of Northern Aggression Lincoln’s primary goal was to preserve the Union, a Union that, in his mind, had existed even before the states, in fact, had always existed. And it was a Union in which the individual states had no real say in what they did, except as allowed by the central government in Washington. In other words, in Lincoln’s “Union” the states were totally free to do whatever Washington required them to do.

Mr. Lincoln didn’t care a flip one way or the other whether slavery flourished or not. As proof of this, witness his support for the Corwin Amendment. “What’s the Corwin Amendment” you ask? You mean you never read about that in your public school “history” books? Wonder how that happened. But then, I guess it’s just one of those little facts the public educators and their collaborators in government and the publishing industry felt you would be better off not knowing about. After all, if you don’t know, then you can’t ask any embarrassing questions can you?

The Corwin Amendment was introduced into Congress in March of 1861. Its sponsor was Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin. That’s right, folks, this man came from Ohio, not Georgia or Alabama. Some reports have stated that Corwin introduced this amendment to prevent the “Civil War.” It was presented to the Congress in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. The entire idea of the Corwin Amendment was to prohibit Congress from trying to ban slavery in whatever states there were that still permitted it. The Corwin Amendment would have stopped Congress from “abolishing or interfering with the ‘domestic institutions’ including ‘persons held to labor or service’ ( a reference to slavery).” Interestingly enough, a parallel resolution to the one in the House was introduced into the Senate by William H. Seward of New York, (not Georgia, but New York). In fact, Wikipedia informs us: “However the newly formed Confederate States of America was totally committed to independence, and so it ignored the proposed Corwin Amendment.” That’s interesting. Our so-called “historians” (and I use that term rather loosely here) have continued to inform us over the past decades that the Southern states fled the Union solely so they could keep their slaves. No other reasons need apply!

If that had really been the case, here was a golden opportunity for them to keep their slaves and to get back into the Union so they could vote to do so. Yet they passed it up. You don’t just suppose they might have had other reasons for secession than slavery do you? The “court historians” would never admit to that fact no matter what.

In February of 1861 the House approved the resolution by a vote of 133-65 and in early March the Senate approved it by a vote of 24-12. The seven Southern states that had already seceded from the Union at that point did not bother to try to vote on the issue, leading to the inescapable conclusion that, for them, slavery was not the real or the only issue. Had it been the only real and sole issue, no doubt they could have petitioned Washington to get back into the Union so they could have voted to keep their slaves.

Also worth noting is the fact that the “great emancipator” did not oppose the Corwin Amendment. He said, in his first inaugural address: “(H)olding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” In other words, a Constitutional amendment that made slavery for life the rule of law didn’t bother Mr. Lincoln one iota.

According to http://www.indopedia.org  “A young Henry Adams observed that the measure narrowly passed through both houses due to the lobbying efforts of Abraham Lincoln, the President-Elect.”

So it seems that Mr. Lincoln lobbied to get this pro-slavery amendment passed through both houses of Congress. Something else your “history” books didn’t bother to tell you about? After all, that fact wouldn’t fit the image of Lincoln the “great emancipator” that people in government and public schools wanted to present to the “great unwashed” (and under-educated) masses–so just leave it out! So it would appear that Mr. Lincoln was not, after all, the great emancipator we have been told he was. And his Emancipation Proclamation, which was really only a war and propaganda measure, freed no one. The slaves were not freed until the 13th Amendment was enacted in late 1865, after Mr. Lincoln has passed on to his eternal fate.

Maybe it behooves us all to start asking questions about those public school “history” books we were all brought up with–you know–really embarrassing questions–the kind they don’t want asked. Somebody needs to do it. Why not now?