What Was the Abolitionist’s REAL Game?

By Al Benson Jr.

The radical Northern abolitionists before the War of Northern Aggression have always been painted in what passes for history books as a noble, self-sacrificing breed who would sacrifice even their lives to free the black man from slavery in the South. The South, in these same “history” (and I used that term loosely) books is portrayed as a land of benighted darkness which only the sacrifice of the dedicated abolitionist can penetrate—men of the caliber of 19th century terrorist John Brown. The “history” books look with favor on such men. So do those who write communist propaganda—and you often have to wonder if the two are the same. Interestingly enough, there were abolitionist societies in the South but these are never mentioned in the history books, at least not any I ever read.

The conclusion I draw from that fact is that the Southern abolitionists were not really radicals of the leftist stripe but the Northern abolitionists leaned in that direction. Hence they get good press while all others are ignored.

If you think that statement is a bit strong, all you need do is to look at some of the comments of William Lloyd Garrison, one of the foremost of the radical Northern abolitionists.

Garrison, writing in his newspaper The Liberator in 1837 stated: “The motto of our banner has been, from the commencement of our moral warfare, ‘our country is the world—our countrymen are all mankind.’ We trust that will be our only epitaph.” You have to admit that such a statement sounds strongly internationalist in character, but then Garrison goes on to say that, next to the overthrow of slavery, the cause of peace will command his attention. And he sums up by stating: “As our object is universal emancipation—to redeem woman as well as man from a servile to an equal condition,–we shall go for the rights of woman to their utmost extent.” So he goes from slavery, to “peace” to “women’s rights (feminism)” and all these are areas that, even today, are a fertile breeding ground for Marxist endeavor and propaganda.

In his book Wendell Phillips author Carlos Martyn has observed, in regard to abolitionism that: “Thus it was that the crusade against slavery inevitably led first to the movement in behalf of woman and then to the movement in behalf of labor.” And of course abolitionist (and apostate) Wendell Phillips was in the thick of all this. And Mr. Martyn also noted of Garrison that: “There were those among the Garrisonians, too, who had adopted every ism of the day. These they sifted into their Anti-Slavery utterances, and thus produced the impression that Abolitionism was the nucleus of every scatter-brain theory and Utopian enterprise. Mr. Garrison himself was a sinner in this respect.” Whether the abolitionists adopted some oddball ideas or not, there were those among their number who seemed to be guiding them in the same direction that the Marxists were taking—from slavery to feminism and “womens’ rights” to involvement in the labor movement to “peace.” Of course your average run of the mill “historian” today would say that this was all totally coincidental—no collusion here on anyone’s part at all. It all just “happens.” Interestingly enough, Mr. Martyn noted Wendell Phillips’ comments regarding the South. Wendell Phillips said, in a speech We have not only an army to conquer, but we have a state of mind to annihilate…When England conquered the Highlands, she held them—held them until she could educate them,–and it took a generation. That is just what we have to do with the South; annihilate the old South, and put a new one there. You do not just annihilate a thing by abolishing it. You must supply the vacancy. I don’t know about anyone else, but to me, it sounds like Wendell Phillips was advocating that Cultural Genocide be practiced on the South.

So, as you can see, the Cultural Genocide problem here in the South is not new. It’s been going on since before the War of Northern Aggression in some form or other, but intensified more after that war because that’s when the real push came, via “reconstruction” to change the South from the Old South to NO South!

What’s just as bad is that it seems that Northern abolitionists almost practiced a form of the class struggle technique on Southern folks in kind of a reverse form. By their blatant attacks on Southern slavery what they really managed to do was to unite Southerners, both slave owners and those who would never own a slave, into one solid group who felt, with justification, that their section of the country was being attacked. Donnie Kennedy has noted in his informative book Rekilling Lincoln that: “…even nineteenth century historians have noted the fact that the vicious attacks upon Southern slavery by radical abolitionists had a harsh, negative impact on the Southern abolition movement. In 1866, George Lunt of Massachusetts noted this negative consequence of radical abolition agitation: The States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee were earnestly engaged in practical movements for the gradual emancipation of their slaves. This movement continued until it was arrested by the aggressions of the abolitionists upon their voluntary actions. .. The abolitionists, however, refused to accept as impending fact, and insisted upon convicting as criminals those who were so well disposed to bring about the very result at which they themselves professed to aim. The consequences were such as might have been reasonably expected. Promised emancipation refused to submit itself to hateful abolition.

So, basically, the radical Northern abolitionist movement deep-sixed the Southern abolitionist movement that was working toward gradual emancipation and pushed all Southern folks into a mode of self-protection over concern for what the radical Northerners had planned for them—and what they had planned for them was Cultural Genocide. So I have asked myself, given the leftist nature of Northern abolitionism, if that was the real game of the Northern abolitionist movement. They weren’t so much interested in really getting rid of Southern slavery as they were in getting rid of any potential competition to their movement—because when the slavery question was settled—they had “other plans” for their movement. Donnie noted in Rekilling Lincoln, on page 65, that: “The radical abolitionists crying ‘freedom from slavery’ and denouncing the South as ‘defenders’ of slavery were, by design or by ignorance, completely overlooking the efforts of Southerners to reduce and ultimately end slavery.” In my opinion, it was by design. At least some of the leadership on the Northern abolitionist movement knew what they were doing and the effect it would have and they went ahead anyway because portraying the South as a nation of slaveholders, when 80% of them never owned a slave fit in with their agenda.

And, as historian Otto Scott noted, most people think that abolitionism died with the end of the War of Northern Aggression, but it didn’t because many of the Republicans in Washington were really abolitionists and all the historians did was to change their name from Radical Abolitionists to Radical Republicans. But the same Marxist worldview was still there—world “peace” the feminist movement, the labor union movement—it was all still in place, much of it to be worked out in the 20th century, and much of it still being pushed now.

“Reconstruction” is still in place. Now they call it Political Correctness. Cultural Genocide is still emphatically in place in the South. Now they call it the “new South” or “cultural diversity” or some other high-sounding title to cover up what it really is. And most people don’t realize what’s being done to them. The next phase of this game is to put down white folks and make them feel guilty for being white and this is going on all over the country. It’s part of national “reconstruction.” So stay tuned, folks, if you thought it couldn’t get any worse, you haven’t seen anything yet.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “What Was the Abolitionist’s REAL Game?

  1. Great article Al but one must go further back and much deeper to totally understand how the small, only about 3 to 5% of the U.S.A. population belonged to this obscure, at the time, political movement called “abolitionists” and what their actual purpose was.

    The real truth is how the abolitionist movement came to the forefront. Like scum that rises to the surface on old polluted and abandoned ponds, the small abolitionist movement in the northeastern states, like radical minority movements of today – the radical blacks, radical Hispanics and other fringe groups who have been variously called Marxists, Liberals, The Left, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, etc…all anti-American- saw an advantage if they joined forces with the northeastern plan to build an American Industrial Revolution with its objective to control world commerce from the northeastern states of the U.S.A.

    These new emerging northeastern industrialist businessmen, variously called tycoons and during the 1860 “Robber Barons” had as its primary goal to extort the needed funds to build their northeastern industrial complex from the prosperous agriculture states.

    All of their plans, schemes actually, up until this point seemed and was honorable until they made the fateful decision of how they would obtain the large amount of funds required to build their northeastern industrial complex.

    Their funding scheme came into existence after other funding sources refused to loan and invest funds into their American Industrial Revolution that had only begun almost one hundred years after the highly successful British Industrial Revolution.

    Piggy-backing on the British innovation the new northeastern industrial leaders turned to brainstorming how they might obtain the large amount of funding needed. They ultimately turned to the new and fledgling U.S. Central or Federal Government.

    While solvent the U.S. Central Government had no financial reserves in its Treasury Department that they could constitutionally grant to northeastern states to build their envisioned and dreamed of industrial complex. The constitutional provision of ‘equal apportionment’ stood in the way. And, like businessmen and politicians always do they put their heads together to come up with a plan. It was this plan that ushered in the American War of 1861 and the abolitionist’s association with the pro-industry northeastern state leaders and politicians.

    Many solutions were discussed and discarded until the group hit on a plan, scheme actually, to take total control of the U.S. Congress and U.S. Central Government so that higher tariff and duty (tax) legislation could be passed on agriculture states and their overseas trading partners which were punitive taxes, but taxes that were at the same time beneficial to northeastern states’ fledgling industrial manufacturers. Thus was born the term “Robber Barons”. The scheme consisted of a plan to pack the U.S. House of Representative with pro-industry state delegations, pass higher tax laws on agriculture industries and their overseas shipping and trading partners, and grant the taxes on agriculture and shipping to northeastern pro-industry tycoons to build their industrial complex.

    As everyone knows, government grants do not have to be repaid to the government treasury they are gifts, or more appropriately welfare granted to state governments, in this case to pay for building the American Industrial Revolutions industrial complex in the northeast U.S.A. Notice and this is important there was never any offer nor intention to build or expand the Northeast’s industry complex into the agriculture states…

    That part of the scheme was unconstitutional and unethical but it went forward anyway and as the agriculture state leaders and politicians woke up and realized what was going on they realized that with the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Presidency the agriculture states would be completely shut out of the legislating process of the U.S. Central or Federal Government…and they were! This development, of a funding scheme by northeastern industrial leaders and northeastern politicians, set into action the beginning of agriculture states succession that pushed the new U.S. President, new Republican Party, former Whig Party leader, pro-industrialist and Marxist Abraham Lincoln to wage open war against the agriculture states to force the continued collection of the excessive taxes imposed on the agriculture states and their overseas trading partners.

    Lincoln repeatedly said that his duty as President was to collect “the imposts”, i. e. ”the taxes”.

    He declared in his first inaugural speech that he would wage a ‘civil war’ against states that chose to exercise their constitutional right to withdraw from the union, which they had voluntarily joined, when it became in the best interest of the state’s people. Lincoln thought otherwise… But Lincoln needed political cover to unconstitutionally wage war on states of the U.S.A. Thus began Lincoln’s efforts at persuasion, propaganda and scheming as to how he could force withdrawn states back onto the Union tax rolls…

    One scheme was followed by a second set of schemes planned by Lincoln and his Union General Winfield Scott who developed a Union military assault plan to surround, cutoff the agriculture states from the rest of the world, and assault the unarmed agriculture states individually to force them back onto the tax rolls of the Union as slave states to the northeastern states. This plan by Lincoln and Scott was clearly a Marxist endeavor. To Lincoln it was a narcissistic exercise that disregarded the consequences and actions following the subjugation of eleven passive agriculture states to National slavery. How would these new slave states and their population of African slaves be managed? Scott’s assault plan came to be called the “Anaconda Plan”… And, the occupation of Charleston Harbor South Carolina and Pensacola Harbor Florida were key Union military staging areas for Lincoln and Scott’s assault on the southeastern agriculture states… Fort Pickens in Pensacola harbor was occupied by Union military forces without major resistance from the Florida militia, but Fort Sumter was a different situation. Lincoln and Scott would have to device another scheme to give Lincoln an excuse to use Union military force to secure Charleston Harbor but was resisted by the South Carolina and Confederate militia. Lincoln has to use a scheme and propaganda to gain civilian support in the northeast to allow him to assault the sovereign non-violent nation by then the Confederate States of America.

    Lincoln was America’s first Marxist thinking if not practicing President. While Lincoln was a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.A. his loyalty lay with a faction of the people and not the entire U.S. population. Today we have a similar reincarnation of Lincoln in one Barack Hussein Obama who is neither loyal to the U.S.A. nor its people…

    Had Lincoln been allowed by the peaceful non-militant agriculture states to continue collecting taxes in their states after secession there would have been no war in 1861!

    But since the agriculture states didn’t allow Lincoln and the Union to continue collecting “the imposts” taxes in their states nor state waters Lincoln and the pro-industry tycoons were put on the spot for failure in his mission to fund the building of the northeastern industrial complex with agriculture taxes and duties. Northeastern tycoons were furious at Lincoln and like any narcissistic je retaliated against the withdrawn states and by the time of his inauguration a free sovereign agriculture nation named the Confederate States of America.

    How abolition fitted into this radical industrial and political scheme to build a Northeastern American Industrial Revolution was that they would become the militant arm of the pro-industrial movement in the new emerging western states to persuade new states in the west, the old Louisiana Territory, to come into the Union as pro-industry states so their pro-industry U.S. Representatives would support the northeastern pro-industry tax legislation. The pro-industry faction knew that a political battle between pro-industry and pro-agriculture states would more than likely be won by the pro-agriculture states and since the greatest majority of the then population of the United States were farmers or related merchants another scheme emerges. So, yet another scheme was hatched, they used codes, ‘anti-slave’ vs. ‘pro-slave’ for ‘anti-industry’ vs. ‘pro-industry’…

    The northeastern industrial leaders then offered (bribed) new emerging states in the west a deal, that they would expand their industrial complex into their western states, which would supply more tax paying residents and more taxes to pay for their state infrastructures and government officers. Naturally the Northeast’s bribe was accepted. The agriculture states had no bargaining chip to bribe western states with. Never-the-less not all western states resisted slavery. Clearly this was nothing less than a bribe by northeastern industrialist and pro-industry politician for more pro-industry delegates in the U.S. House. The tragic truth is, it worked. The pro-industry did pack the U.S. House with new Republican Party delegates and a pro-industry President. The pro-industry new Republican Party took control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the presidency in 1861 and began passing punitive tax legislation on the agriculture states and their overseas shipping and trading partners.

    This knowledge resulted in the western movement becoming a slave issues rather than an industrial issue and the abolitionist movement signed on with the pro-industry movement as the militant arm in the west to keep out or punish any attempt at moving slaves into the new emerging western states. So, the issue was not slavery at all because several things were going on that tells us otherwise.

    First, the western states like the northeastern states did not have the geography or climate suitable for growing the exportable non-perishable agriculture products of first tobacco and then cotton, among other profitable products like Indigo that had made the southeastern agriculture states prosperous.

    The northeast and western states could only produce perishable crops of grain, primarily wheat, for local markets, which was perishable and could not be shipped for great distances, even in America, much less across the ocean to the lucrative markets of Europe. So, there was no need for large numbers of unskilled labor, slaves, in the northeast or western states, although all colonies and later states of the U.S.A. had many slave holders and/or slave trading industries, including the slave trade industry in the northeast.

    Second, agriculture was entering an era of farm equipment inventions, such as Cyrus McCormick Mechanical Reaper which precluded the need for large number of untrained labor, slaves, in the northeast and western states; Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin on March 14, 1794, which further reduced the need for large number of slave to remove the seed from ‘cotton bowls’, and in 1850 when Edmund Quincy invented the corn picker. … These inventions and others would have hastened the end to the constitutionally protected slave institution in the U.S.A., perhaps in 20 years and agriculturists of the time recognized that fact, but it made little difference to northeastern pro-industry factions…they wanted their northeastern and western industrial complex come hell, high water or war!

    Note that the northeastern pro-industry tycoons never offered to expand their industrial complex into the agriculture states even though it was agriculture state’s taxes that was building the infrastructure… This was clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s apportionment clause since no collected taxes were returned to the agriculture states.

    The truth and real role the minority abolitionists’ movement played in American history was as armed enforcers of an unconstitutional and diabolical scheme to pack the U.S. House of Representatives with pro-industry, not anti-slavery, delegates to extort funds from the agriculture states to build the northeastern states’ wealth building industry comparable to the agriculture industry of the southeastern states… The new Republican Party and its leader, President Abraham Lincoln were not anti-slavery, they were pro-industry!

    Slavery was on its way out in the U.S.A. because of a reduced need for large numbers of expensive non-skilled labor, slaves because of agriculture equipment inventions.

    With the Constitution’s provision that no new slaves could be transported into the U.S.A. by 1808, the Importation Act of 1807 ensured that the slave trade, practiced by northeastern seaboard states would also have to cease their building of slave ships, manufacturing trade goods to buy slaves and cease hiring slave ship crews.

    But, the institution of slavery was not outlawed by the Constitution. In fact it was guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Surprising to some, but not those who study the U.S. Constitution, neither the abolitionists, Lincoln nor any U.S. politician of the period ever proposed an Amendment to abolish slavery in the U.S.A before the Lincoln Tariff War of 1861! Why?

    Clearly the war of 1861 did not begin over slavery and the only way it can be distorted to be called a ‘Civil War’ is that Union President Lincoln ordered the Union military force to wage civil war on the sovereign nation of the Confederate States of America…

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