The Foundation of “Civil Rights” (that you will never get from the “history” books)

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

After the Confederate States of America succumbed to Yankee/Marxist might in 1865 (the Confederacy never officially surrendered) there arose a mighty clamour  for “civil rights” for blacks in the South. Notice that there was no similar clamour for them in the North–only in the South! With the returning remnants of the Confederate army came yet another “army”–the Yankee/Marxist rabble, er, pardon me, I meant the Yankee army of occupation–composed of Northern public education proponents, slick politicians, carpetbagger fortune hunters, and the ever-present Freedmen’s Bureau.

After Abraham Lincoln’s assassination (and even today, the jury is still out on who was ultimately responsible for that) the radical abolitionists in Congress repudiated Lincoln’s “reconstruction” policies and substituted their own instead. There had been notable differences in what Lincoln wanted to do, which would have gained him additional patronage and what the radicals wanted to  do which would have gained them more patronage. I am surprised  that this particular situation has not been more explored as a possible reason for the assassination. But, then, that wouldn’t have gone along with the game plan, would it?

Needless to say, the complete hatred of the abolitionist radicals for anything Southern was pathological. In March of 1867 they forced the South under martial law,  deprived the white population of voting rights, redress in courts and representation. Carpetbagger politicians and just-freed ex-slaves were handed the power to govern the South. Author Thomas DiLorenzo wrote: “The so-called Reconstruction only poured salt into ‘the nation’s wounds,’ an inevitable consequence of the precedents established by Lincoln in disregarding constitutional liberties and international laws for the sake of politics…The primary effect, if not the intent, of the ‘Reconstruction’ policies of 1865-77 was to centralize and consolidate state power in Washington, D.C., and to establish Republican Party political hegemony that would last for some seventy years.” Lincoln had a view of “reconstruction” that would have allowed him to retain most of the power. The radical Congress had yet another view of “reconstruction” that would have given Congress the power to administer it rather than the president. Mr. Lincoln’s assassination conveniently settled that little question in favor of the radical Congress.

The war’s end marked the beginning of our modern “civil rights” movement, what has been termed a “socio-political experiment  with the freed slaves–by Northern interests–which has left  an indelible impression in the Southern mind with regard to the negro in politics.” The  point has been made that, had the Yankee/Marxist mentalities in Washington handled “reconstruction” differently the results would have been much better for all concerned. That’s probably true, but, unfortunately, the collectivists in Washington did exactly what they wanted to do. It was all part of an ongoing agenda lasting down into our own day. It was not done by accident, but by design–the design of class struggle–black against white in the South–and it worked!

Booker T. Washington, the well-known black educator, had some telling thoughts on “reconstruction.”  Having avoided the propaganda of Yankee/Marxist agitators, his thinking was clear on this issue. Washington, in his autobiography Up From Slavery wrote the following: “Though I was but little more than a youth during the period of reconstruction, I had the feeling that mistakes were being made, and that things could not remain in the condition that they were in very long. I felt that the Reconstruction policy, so far as it related to my race, was in large measure on a false foundation, was artificial and forced. In many ways it seemed to me that the ignorance of my race was being used as a tool with which to help white men into office, and that there was an element in the North that wanted to punish Southern white men by forcing the Negro into positions over the heads of the Southern whites. I felt the Negro would be the one to suffer for this in the end.”

It’s interesting that, in a North, supposedly so cognizant of “civil rights” and black opinions, that Washington’s opinions and thoughts on this subject were not given more serious consideration. But, then, that would not have fit the radical agenda! Mr. Washington later wrote: “I saw colored men who were members of the state legislatures, and county officers,  who, in some cases, could not read or write, and whose morals were as weak as their education.” That’s exactly what the radicals wanted.

Realizing the statist mindset of these Northern “reconstructors” it is highly doubtful that they sought results other than what they got.  They desired a “reconstruction” that would, first of all, rub the South’s nose in the mud for even daring to resist the collectivist “power from on high” in Washington, D.C. Secondly, they wanted a South purged of all its theological leanings toward Reformed doctrine and the biblical concept of local self-government.

One clique of Northern troublemakers that was largely responsible for the early shaping of the civil rights movement in the South was the Union League. According to Kent Steffgen, in his book The Bondage of the Free: “The League was an organization started in Ohio in 1862 when it appeared the South might be on its way to victory. Raising troops within the states for the Union army, the league paid their expenses, sent supplies to the front, and distributed political literature. Within a year after its birth, the League had established itself in 18 Northern states and transferred its headquarters to New York City.” We might wonder, why New York City, and who ran the organization there? Of course there was severe opposition to the war in New York City, which may have had something to do with that.

During wartime one can understand the formation of such a group. Perhaps, sensing the reluctance in much of the North to wage active aggression against the South, particularly in the Midwest, the group’s founders wanted to do something to counter pro-Southern sentiment. The Union League was their effort in that direction.

However, once the war was officially over, the Union League should have been disbanded. But it’s so hard to abolish what you have promoted that the organization just hung in there–and moved South! It then became the promotional arm of the Republican Party, the supposed “party of small government.” The research Donnie Kennedy and I did for our book Lincoln’s Marxists has given the lie to that “small government” fable.

The League went about setting up local Union League Clubs throughout the South, especially in the areas of the heaviest black population (all the better to manipulate you, my dear). The Union League or “Loyal League” as it was known in some areas, at once became a semi-secret organization for white Northern radicals and Southern blacks. Does that trend sound much different than the way the “civil rights” movement operated in this country in more recent decades, and even today to some extent?

According to Kent Steffgen: “The Union League henceforth worked for radical reconstruction of the Southern states, punishment of Southern leaders, confiscation of property for equal distribution among the Negroes, and for Negro suffrage…Each unit operated as a secret oath-bound order  with a constitution, a ritual, passwords, obligations, etc., all of which was designed to appeal to the freed Negro…the Loyal or Union Leagues were administered by carpetbaggers who wasted no time setting out to build a political force for themselves.” So this was the true foundation of “civil rights.” It was not a movement begun out of any real desire to better the lot of ex-slaves, or to help them to adapt to a new life in a changed environment, but rather a movement to ensure that Northern power brokers in the South could hang onto their new positions.

It was a political tool for Northern radicals, through which they could use the blacks to perpetuate themselves in power. Their whole scheme of property confiscation was thoroughly Marxist in sentiment, as were its perpetrators.  Their entire program was carefully thought out and planned–because it is still working today, with few people the wiser, after 150 years!

5 thoughts on “The Foundation of “Civil Rights” (that you will never get from the “history” books)

  1. I have another theory about Lincoln’s assassination: Lincoln was a key element in the Northeastern businessmen, who came to be called “Robber Barons” in the 1860’s in their scheme to form the new industrialization Republican Party in 1854, take the majority in Congress and the Presidency so ever rising tariff laws could be passed without interference and objection by the agriculture South’s Congress members. This included stopping agriculture expansion into the Louisiana Territories bought unconstitutionally in 1803: The pro-industry House of Representatives would pass tariff laws beneficial to the Northeastern emerging manufacturing industries that were punitive to the agriculture South and its foreign trading partners. The Northeaster industrial leaders promised the new states coming into the Union that they would expand their new American Industrial Revolution infrastructure into the newly forming states in the western United States. For every 30,000 residents in a “state” the state would receive 1 House of Representative member and that was why it was important for the Northeast’s new Republican Party to pack The House with pro-industry members, and why it was important to keep agriculture out of the western states. That’s where the Northeast’s claim that they were anti-slave first appeared. “Anti-slave” was the Northeast’s and Union government’s code word for pro-industry. The pro-industry’s new Republican Party majority in Congress would pass laws southern legislators were helpless to resist because of the purposeful packing of The House with pro-industry members. The abolitionists became the militant enforces of the Northeastern industrial movement with orders to keep agriculturists in the South from expanding into the new emerging western states. Only there was one catch the Northeastern pro-industry advocates didn’t think about. No one thought about the fact that when a western territory new state came into the Union it immediately came under the control of the Union Constitution which protected the right of the slavery institution in the U.S.A. which opened up those new western states to the southern agriculture industries and their slave labor. When the South realize they had been essentially rooted out of the U.S. Congress they quickly came to the conclusion that they had to withdraw from the Union and form their own agriculture based nation, the Confederate States of America. This put untold pressure on the new Republican’s minority President Abraham Lincoln to bring the South back into the fold so tariffs could continue to be collected to fund the building of the Northeast’s industrial infrastructure. Lincoln, the narcissist he was acted out of anger and declared a “civil war” against the peacefully formed Confederate States of America to assault using General Scott’s “Anaconda Assault Plan” to enslave the entire southern agriculture states of the United States to pay for the Northeast’s new American Industrial Revolution to control world commerce from the Northeast. Lincoln failed miserably to carry out his part of the pro-industry gang’s scheme to enslave the South in order to get the funds need to build their industrial infrastructure. And, I believe the Northeastern “Robber Barons” came to believe that Lincoln had failed them in their unconstitutional scheme to enslave half of the states of the United States to produce the funds they needed and it was they, the once ally of Lincoln who lost the most and turned against Lincoln and furnished the money to assassinate Abraham Lincoln. Why would the South and/or the already formed Confederate State of America in 1861, who had no military capability at all to assassinate a failed President, Abraham Lincoln. We know from period history that the pro-industry faction in the Northeast turned against Lincoln and he was sure that he wouldn’t have a second term in the presidency, but who was perhaps the first individual to exercise Election Fraud and Vote Stealing to win his second term, and that caused the “Robber Barons” to put up the funds to rid their Republican Party of a failed leader, Abraham Lincoln. Only the Marxist revisionist historians has saved Lincoln’s fake legacy… The real truth of Abraham Lincoln and his assault on southern agriculture has been pushed down since Lincoln’s death, which was the best thing that could have happened to the 1860s Marxist movement in the United States…

  2. Pingback: The Hypocrisy of “Reconstruction” |

  3. Pingback: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About America’s Founding | Free Kentucky

  4. Pingback: Weekly Link Post 12-14-18 | Dirt People

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s