Was the War of Northern Aggression a Marxist Revolution?

by Al Benson Jr.

The title of this article is asked as a rhetorical question, as Donnie Kennedy and I have already dealt in depth with this subject in our book Lincoln’s Marxists. But it does not hurt to ask it again, as many folks have not only not read our book, but they have never been confronted with some of the information that is now out there dealing with this subject. The leftist radicals in the early Republican Party were not bashful in giving away their socialist tendencies when they commented on the South and their plans for it and its people after the War.

James M. McPherson, who is by no means my favorite “historian” has dealt with some of this in an Internet article–Some Thoughts on the Civil War as the Second Revolution. McPherson seems to enjoy dealing with the subject of the War as if it were, indeed, a revolution, only he quotes the people that portray the Southerners as the revolutionaries. Needless to say, it was really the other way around. But then, a standard Marxist tactic is “condemn others and elevate yourself.”

McPherson noted the comments of future president James Garfield while he was in Congress, and he noted that: “During the first three of his seventeen years in Congress, Garfield was one of the most radical of the radical Republicans. He continued to view the Civil War and Reconstruction as a revolution that must wipe out all traces of the ancient regime in the South. In his maiden speech in the House of Representatives on January 28, 1864, he called for the confiscation of the land of Confederate planters and the redistribution of this land among the freed slaves and white Unionists in the South.” It hardly needs to be stated that such a concept is in total agreement with what Karl Marx advocated in the Communist Manifesto. This position was in total agreement with the first and fourth planks of the Communist Manifesto. Marx–sorry, I meant Garfield–then sought to excuse such Marxist confiscation on the premise that this had been done during our War for Independence with land that had belonged to the Tories. Of course a lot of the Tories had left the country, many going to Canada, and so much of their land was vacant anyway. And Garfield went on: “The leaders of this rebellion must be executed or banished from the republic…” So, was Garfield advocating mass executions of Southern leaders? Or at least their banishment so the federal government could then control the land that had been theirs? This was the same attitude as that displayed by General Sherman regarding Southerners–and it was still consistent with Marx.

Land confiscation was a cardinal tenet of Marxism and it was also a favorite among the Northern elite. In his book Citizen Sherman, Michael Fellman observed: “Land confiscation as one means of displacing the Confederate leadership had been discussed widely during the war. As early as August 24, 1862, John Sherman had written his brother, ‘If we can’t depend on the loyalty of the white men of the South, I would give the land to the blacks or colonize a new set (of northern whites).’ The general too had, since 1862, threatened Southerners with dispossession, their land to be redistributed to Northern white colonists…When the inhabitants persist too long in hostility it may be both politic and right that we should banish them and appropriate their lands to a more loyal and useful population…If they want eternal war, well and good; we will dispossess them and put our friends in their place…Many people with less pertinacity have been wiped out of national existence.” Almost makes you wonder if such is a veiled threat.

And Sherman made it quite plain that he would not hesitate to practice what we today call psychological warfare on the Southern people. According to Fellman, “His army would not inflict military defeat on a Confederate army, but intentionally humiliating destruction on a peaceful, cultivated Southern landscape and her people.” Lots easier to fight mostly unarmed Southern civilians than it is Confederate soldiers that can shoot back. But this is the way Marxists fight a war. Almost makes you wonder if Lenin took lessons from Sherman.

Radical abolitionist (and Unitarian) Wendell Phillips was among the most outspoken. In his mind he insisted that the War “is primarily a social revolution. The war can only be ended by annihilating that Oligarchy which formed and rules the South and makes the war-by annihilating a state of society. The whole social system of the Gulf States must be taken to pieces.” And dear old Thaddeus Stevens, that “gentle giant” of the radical abolitionists said they had to “treat this war as a radical revolution” and “reconstruction” then needed to “revolutionize Southern institutions, habits and manners…The foundations of their institutions…must be broken up and relaid, or all our blood and treasure have been spent in vain.” So, as you can see by the statements made, the real revolutionaries in this war were not the Southern people or their leaders, but were, instead, those among the Northern elite who had imbibed the doctrines of socialism that became so clearly apparent when they spoke. What they have been describing here is nothing less than what the Communists in Russia and China did when they took over those countries–cultural genocide. Change the culture and make it totally unrecognizable to those who had lived under the old Christian culture. For “those people” the war and “reconstruction” were nothing more than exercises in Cultural Marxism–the 19th century variety.

Back in 2012, Andre M. Fleche wrote a book called The Revolution of 1861: The American Civil War in the Age of Nationalist Conflict. I haven’t yet read it so I can’t comment all that much on it, but Fleche does deal with the Forty-eighters that Donnie Kennedy and I deal with in Lincoln’s Marxists. A review by Jarret Ruminski (University of Calgary) noted that: “Fleche supports his argument for the importance of 1848 by highlighting the significant roles European revolutionaries played in shaping American nationalist debates in the years leading up to the Civil War, and showing their continued influence after its outbreak.” So Mr. Fleche also recognizes how influential the Forty-eighters in this country were before the War and how their revolutionary influence affected what went on.

More and more, the general public, and especially Southerners, need to be much more aware of just how (from a socialist perspective) the North was influenced by the Forty-eighters and how that influence affected not only the War and “reconstruction” but how it has affected everything that has gone on since then.

This demonstrates that “reconstruction” never truly ended in the South, or anywhere else in the country, but is, in fact, in operation today. Obama’s plan to “fundamentally transform the United States” is all part and parcel of it. The old (Christian) culture has to be gotten rid of and a new one instituted. If you can say anything about Obama, you can truthfully say that he is a “change agent” for the New World Order, and he has taken many of his lessons in that area from Abraham Lincoln and from “Lincoln’s Marxists.”

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Was the War of Northern Aggression a Marxist Revolution?

  1. COMMENTS BY Al Barrs albarrs@wfeca.net
    Posted on January 1, 2015

    (Just a couple of points before I comment further… First, the so called ‘civil war’ was only called that by Lincoln at his first inaugural address and later the term was used by Union General Winfield Scott. Yet, the miss-described American War of 1861 was never a ‘civil war’. The War was a ‘regional war’ –a war- between two different ideological and social beliefs, and people: Pro-agriculture and pro-industrial. Pro-agriculturalists of the Southern Region were primarily people of Great Britain. Pro-industrialists of the Northeastern Region were primarily people of Continental Europe. Great Britain had been for decades in constant battle with nations of Continental Europe. Thousands of lives and millions of dollars had been lost in numerous battles. Continental European leaders and therefore their subjects (who weren’t ‘citizens’) and Great Britain leaders and their subjects (who weren’t ‘citizens’ either) deplored each other. Those long held animosities and hatred unfortunately wasn’t left at the shoreline in Continental Europe nor Great Britain…it came to the North America’s colonies.

    [–]

    Then the Southern region discovered and became prosperous with the very important agriculture crops of first Tobacco and other crops like Indigo and Rice, and finally King Cotton. These agriculture crops gave the agriculture region of the country a viable wealth building commodity that was not perishable and could be shipped to Great Britain and Continental European nations.

    [–]

    Then the Northeastern region attempted to capitalize on the Southern discoveries of profitable nonperishable agriculture crops and attempted to become a Tobacco and later Cotton producing region as the Southern region had earlier. However, they soon learned that these most valuable of crops could not be successfully or profitably grown in the more northern regions of the North American colonies. The weather patterns and soil in the northern Colonies was not suitable for the successful production of Tobacco and Cotton and these nonperishable crops had to be abandoned for other profitable enterprises in the northern Colonies and later U.S.A.

    [–]

    Then the Northeastern region turned to searches for a region enterprise upon which the people of the Northeast could build wealth and a stable economy. First they established a ship building industry on the Atlantic coast, the ‘eastern shore’. This enterprise had large resources of suitable Oak timber forest from which raw products for ocean going ships could be built. But, demand for transport or cargo ships was not high and only the Southern region of the Colonies had need for large fleets of cargo ships, but Great Britain ship owners had already built a trade partnership alliance with Southern agriculturists to transport their agriculture products to Great Britain and Continental European nations and transport goods, supplies and equipment Southern agriculturists need for their growing and profitable agriculture enterprises.

    [–]

    The Northeastern region then turned to the ‘Slave Trade’ which required large numbers of ocean going ships with special provisions for transporting large numbers of West African slaves to the America. Most slaves were sold in Caribbean Island and South American nations with only about 5% being sold in the Colonies of North America later to become the U.S.A.

    [–]

    A thriving manufacturing industry sprang up on the ‘eastern shore’ of America to supply ‘slave trade goods’ by which Northeastern ‘Slave Traders’ used to buy West African slaves from West African tribal chiefs. This new industrial venture served the people along the Atlantic coast very well for a while, but looking the Slave Traders and Ship Builders of the ‘eastern shore’ square in the eye was the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that the importation of slaves must end by 1808. Slave traders in the Northeastern region knew the end of their new profitable Slave Trade industry was going to be greatly curtailed by the loss of the Southern agriculture regions slave sales business. Slavery was not outlawed by the U.S. Importation clause in the Constitution but profits would be greatly curtailed but the institution of slavery would continue in the U.S.A. by constitutional decree since the institution of slavery was protected in the U.S.A. Constitution of 1787. With the loss of their most profitable slave market, the agriculture south, northeastern businessmen looked for other profitable ventured to replace lost revenues from their slave trade industry.

    [–]

    Eventually the Northeastern pro-industry leaders would come to the conclusion that their region of the U.S.A. was more suited to manufacturing and overseas shipping than agriculture and the slave trade. They would come to a conclusion that they had in the Northeastern region of the U.S.A. the resources and geography to become a power player in world commerce. This decision resulted in a plan to create and build an American Industrial Revolution much like the almost one hundred year old British Industrial Revolution, but their objective was to control world commerce from the Northeastern region of the United States of America. To do this however would require great resources of money and manpower.

    [–]

    The building of the great American Industrial Revolution would provide the industry and wealth building Northeastern businessmen wanted. But, two roadblocks stood in the Northeastern industrialists’ way. These were funds and skilled manpower to build the industrial infrastructure and operate the emerging factories. The second roadblock could be easily removed by shifting the Northeastern Slave Trader operations from transporting African slaves to transporting ‘skilled’ workers from Continental Europe. The first challenge however was more ominous. Since Northeastern industrialists’ had proclaimed their intentions to control world commerce they immediately raised the ire of Great Britain and Continental European industrialists who resented the competition for their world commerce customers. The fledgeling industries of the Northeastern U.S.A. certainly did not have sufficient funds nor access to same to finance the design, construction and manning of a region wide industrial complex. Where to get the funds became the key challenge to Northeastern industrial leaders.

    [–]

    The conclusion, which has been lost (hidden from) to history, was to gain control of a U.S. political party and build it as a pro-industry party and use that to gain control of the U.S. Federal Government. The Whig party, a pro-industry party, seemed ripe for the taking, but it soon went defunct and the new Republican Party was started to take its place as the pro-industry political party in the U.S.A. In order to take over the majority in the U.S. Congress the new Republican Party under the control and funding by Northeastern industrialists a shift in party membership was necessary since the Southern region of the U.S.A. had pretty much controlled Congress and therefore legislation. Many Southern politicians however did support and favor the concept of industrialization in the Northeast because much of their agriculture raw products were sold to Northeastern manufacturers and finished products bought from the Northeastern markets. A symbiotic relationship evolved between the Southern pro-agriculture region and the pro-industry region. However, that relationship would be short lived when the pro-industrial leaders in the Northeast decided to take over the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives so that legislation could be passed to raise tariff and duty (taxes) on the Southern agriculture region and their overseas trading partners to supply the funds needed to build their northeastern industrial infrastructure.

    [–]

    In 1803 the U.S. President had purchases, unconstitutionally, the Louisiana Territory from France. This became an opportunity for pro-industrialists in the Northeast. Instead of leaving this new U.S. territory as a territory it could be carved up into new states and with that the states could join the U.S. congressional delegation. Northeastern industrialists would attempt to pack the U.S. House of Representatives and control legislation, especially tariff and duty legislation to fund their industrial infrastructure. First, new Western states would have to be persuaded to come into the Union as pro-industry states. To do this Northeastern industrial leaders’ promised to expand their Northeastern industrial infrastructure into the western states to provide badly needed residents, workers and taxes to support the emerging Western state governments. There was a problem with this plan however. Much of the land in the western territories was suitable for some agriculture crops such as grains, primarily wheat. Wheat and other grains were very profitable domestic crops but were perishable and could not be successfully shipped overseas at that time so the profitability was limited to sales in the continental U.S.A. Since Cyrus McCormick had invented his mechanical grain harvester in 1834 large numbers of untrained workers, primarily slaves, would never be needed in the western or northern regions of the U.S.A. The pro-industry leaders’ scheme deepened since it became apparent that additional pro-industry U.S. House members were required in order to pack the U.S. Congress and particularly the U.S. House with pro-industry members so high tariff and duty legislation could be passed punitive to Southern agriculture and their overseas trading partners and beneficial to the fledgeling small manufacturing business on the Northeastern coast. The strategy used by the Northeastern industry leaders was the slave issue…make the fight for the U.S. Congress a slave issue rather than an industry issue to hide the real objective of the pro-industrialists of the Northeast. The U.S. Constitution had decreed a federal census every ten years beginning in 1790. And, the U.S. Constitution had also decreed that ‘each state’ would have 2 U.S. Senators representing their state in the U.S. Congress and 1 U.S. House member for each 30,000 residents in each of the states. If Northeastern industrial leaders and their pro-industry politicians of the new Republican Party in the U.S. Government could persuade (bribe) enough Western state politicians and leaders to come into the Union as pro-industry states the Northeastern industrial leaders would have full control of the U.S. Government and the making of legislation including tariff and duty legislation to raise funds from the pro-agriculture industries and their overseas trading partners to build their Northeastern industrial revolution’s infrastructure…

    [–]

    Shortly the pro-industry and their pro-industry politicians decided it was not prudent to focus national and world attention on a pro-industry hostility toward a pro-agriculture industry in the U.S.A. A different tactic was required. Why not use the fledgling slave issue to incite people and groups to influence support for industrialization in the Northeast and new Western States instead of exposing the real reason for what they were doing? Now the shrewd if dishonest and immoral Northeastern industrialists, who became known as “Robber Barons” in the mid-1850s, and their new Republican allies, including minority elected Abraham Lincoln, who garnered only 39% of the popular vote in a 4-way election, in the Federal Government had a firm majority in the U.S. House and eventually in the Presidency their basic plan could proceed as planned. Immediately the pro-industry majority in the U.S. Congress began passing tariff and duty legislation and the new old Whig and now new Republican Party leader Abraham Lincoln a pro-industrialists and former pro-industrialist Whig Party leader began signing tariff and duty legislation to extract the funds needed to build the Northeast’s American Industrial Revolution’s industrial complex infrastructure from the Southern agriculture states…

    [–]

    At this point the pro-agriculture region’s leaders and politicians came to the realization that the agriculture south of the U.S.A. had been maneuvered completely out of the U.S. legislating process. And with the Importation Act of 1807 Southern state’s populations would level off and begin to decrease even though the U.S. Constitution forbade the Federal Census to count slaves as whole persons. Had slaves been counted as whole persons the agriculture region would have had at least 120 more U.S. House members…it didn’t happen…the pro-industry faction had complete control over legislation and all legislation particularly tariff and duty legislation that was punitive to the agriculture region and its overseas trading partners but beneficial to Northeastern manufacturing industries. The agriculture region was finally and forever locked out of United States legislation making process and therefore the Federal Government…the pro-industry faction had completely taken over control of the U.S. Federal Government and the economy of the government… Northeastern “Robber Barons” reigned supreme…for a while that is, or until Lincoln screwed their plan up by flying off the handle and assaulting the goose that had laid the golden egg…the agriculture South simply because they defied his sworn duty to “collect the posts”…TAXES. This was clearly a second time Americans had experienced “taxation without representation” but this time instead of a monarchical King George III, it would be Marxist despot Abraham Lincoln who would force taxes on a profitable segment of the U.S.A.

    [–]

    The agriculture states only salvation and survival as a viable and profitable nation lay only in the separation from the pro-industrial Northeast and new Western region of the U.S.A. To remain in the U.S.A. would make the agriculture states ‘slave states’ and its people ‘subjects” instead of ‘citizens’ to the industrializing Northeastern states and their utter control of the U.S. Federal Government. …The rest is history–history revised by Marxists to martyr and make a failed President, Lincoln the man who saved the Union, and make the Northeastern U.S.A. heroes. Today we are repeating that journey but instead of Lincoln at the helm it is Barack Hussein Obama at the helm of this second Marxist effort to replace our republican form of government with a despotism form of government…

    [–]

    The War of 1861, called a “civil war” by Lincoln who unconstitutionally ordered Union militia forces to assault the agriculture state’s new government, was not a war the agriculture states started. And, don’t let revisionists tell you that Lincoln defied the U.S. Constitution and Congress when Southern forces fired on Fort Sumter… The Fort Sumter incident was a contrived espionage order by Lincoln to create an incident to give Lincoln cover to assault South Carolina and all other agriculture states which might choose to withdraw from the United States which they had earlier voluntarily joined in a union of sovereign states. The agriculture states wanted nothing but to be left alone to be a peaceful nation based on agriculture, it had no military and had no manufacturing or transportation system with the exception of natural waterways and crude trails and roads. There were few railroads compared to the Northeast. They never had and did not have any intentions of creating a ‘civil war’, as Lincoln falsely claimed, against the Northeastern region of the U.S.A…and never did attack the Northeast with plans to capture or destroy the U.S. Government and replace it with their own pro-agriculture government, which is the definition of ‘civil war’. They could have destroyed Washington City and captured the entire U.S. Government following their victory at the Battle of Bull Run in Virginia, but the didn’t…the South fought a defensive war for peace and that decision is why they eventually ran out of men and equipment to fight a far superior force but even in defeat the South was true to its beliefs and intentions of peaceful existence…even after being forced into war by a despotic President of the Union and his co-conspirators. In fact the agriculture region wanted to continue trade between Southern agriculture and Northeastern manufacturers. Only Lincoln’s war prevented both the U.S. and new Confederate States from coexisting and from both being profitable and world leaders in their respective industries of agriculture and manufacturing…Lincoln screwed all that up and killed over 630,000 young Americans and destroyed eleven states industry, cities and people… The blood is on Lincoln’s hands. And, it was probably the Northeastern industrialist “Robber Barons” who paid to have Lincoln assassinated because by waging war and assaulting their Goose that was to lay their golden egg, southern agriculture, was destroyed by Lincoln’s poor and devastating decisions to force some states to pay taxes while giving their tax revenue to other states to better themselves, which is unconstitutional since this action is not in proportion to the states populations as the Constitution enumerates.

    [–]

    When and if one looks at the evidence as outlined in period documents they can only conclude that the American war of 1861 was definitively ‘Lincoln’s Tariff War’… but without any doubt was not a ‘civil war’!)

    [–]

    (The American Marxists’ strategy has always been to blame others for what you are doing before you get blamed for having actually done it” Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and certainly Barack Obama are masters of this deflective propaganda strategy.—Al Barrs, Jr.)

    [–]

    (Much, if not all, of that land was Native American land that had been taken by force and was abandoned by the Tories during the only “Civil War” in U.S.A. history, The American War for Independence, because they didn’t have the courage to fight for the land.—Al Barrs, Jr.)

    [–]

    (One must not forget that Lincoln in July of 1861 after unconstitutionally ordering up 75,000 militia troops in the Northeast for a 90-day enlistment ordered through his co-conspirator Union Gen. Winfield Scott an all-out military assault on the new capital of the new Confederates States of America Richmond City, Virginia with orders to assault the southern train depot at Manassas Junction, Virginian, commandeer southern trains and the railroad, load Union military troops, weapons and supplies; proceed to Richmond City with orders to surround the city and capture or kill all Confederate leaders and politicians. This was the only “civil war” act committed and it was ordered by Abraham Lincoln. The question never answered is, what did Lincoln and Scott intend to do to the southern agriculture states and its people if he succeeded in capturing these eleven agriculture states which he and Scott had planned to assault even before Lincoln’s first inauguration that came to be called the “Anaconda Plan”? Would Lincoln act as the despot he was and make the people and states “Slave States” to the pro-industry Northeast, forced into labor to build the pro-industrialists of the Northeastern region’s new American Industrial Revolution infrastructure in the Northeast with their stated objective to control world commerce from the Northeastern region of the U.S.A. or would he pardon the pro-agriculture Southern region of the U.S.A?—Al Barrs, Jr.)

    [–]

    (“Total War!” Total war was a military practice abhorred by the international community at that time, but a practice the Lincoln approved and Union General Sherman heaped on the civilian population of the agriculture states…—Al Barrs, Jr.)

    [–]

    (And, let us not forget that Karl Marx wrote Lincoln a letter of congratulation after the surrender of General Lee. It is difficult for Marxist revisionists today to deny this fact and connection of Lincoln to Karl Marx and his ideology because the letter and Lincoln’s response still exists as a genuine and true period document of American history, for which I have researched and written a great deal.—Al Barrs. Jr.)

    [–]

    (Yes, this did occur in 1800s America and it is happening in the 2000s America all over again and it is the Marxist game plan that domestic terrorists led by communist operative Obama are following much like the pro-industrialists “Robber Barons” led by Lincoln did in the mid-1800s! Obama has said that his primary mentor is Abraham Lincoln… Nuf said!—Al Barrs, Jr.)

    [–]

    (It takes a communist to know a communist and Barack Hussein Obama knows communism very well having been born and raised a communist…–Al Barrs, Jr. albarrs@wfeca.net)

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