Socialism And The 14th Amendment

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Moral decline is one of the main fruits of apostasy. It is always  accompanied by a decline in the level of personal responsibility. However, because responsibility is neglected does not mean that it has been eliminated. If rejected, it will be transferred elsewhere. If a formerly responsible people decide, one way or another, to abdicate their responsibilities and adopt a “Let Eroge (the State) do it” then you can rest assured that “George” will do it, and those that abdicated their responsibilities will live to regret what George does. Read First Samuel, chapter 8, in the Old Testament Scriptures.

After the shooting phase of the War of Northern Aggression had ceased and federal power grew, the States lost power. Now, in these latter years of insanity we live in, state governors, in order to maintain their popularity with a jaded electorate that wants everything done for them, have jumped on the “federal funds” bandwagon!  Many state governors spend more time running to Washington for “their fair share” of the collectivist federal pie than they spend at home governing their States. This political charade has turned the States into nothing more than vassals of the Deep State in Washington (just what Abraham Lincoln wanted) administering federally mandated programs in their respective federal districts–er, excuse me, I meant their States! Oh well, same difference anymore.

A few years back, a friend of mine in Illinois, Tom Parent, authored a small booklet called Local Government in which he made several cogent observations. Tom said: “…with the loss of state power, the growth of federal power threatens to destroy an important safeguard provided by the states; a safeguard upon which the American people depend greatly for their liberties: competition between the state governments!”

After the apparent part of the War of Northern Aggression was out of the way, what the abolitionist/reconstruction crowd sought to do, along with destroying the religious base of the South, was to destroy also its economic and political base. As to how they did that, read the Kennedy Brothers’ book Punished With Poverty.

The 1860’s Deep State would, therefore, end any Southern competition to the North. The concept of states’ rights necessarily embodied the idea of States in competition with one another. Under this concept of states’ rights, if one state did not deal fairly with its citizens, they could pack up and move on to a state more to their liking.

However, in Local Government Tom Parent asked the question: “But what happens if state governments become little more than federal puppets? And what happens if state laws become carbon copies of federal policy?  Where do the people move to escape  the tyranny of an all-powerful government?” Good questions all. And those living in the “reconstructed” South after the war had no real answer for such questions. Sadly, even with Trump in office, we don’t seem to today either. The situation Tom Parent mentioned is one Southern folks lived with daily. Today the entire country lives with it. As I have often said in some of these articles “reconstruction is ongoing.” So let it be stated here, one more time, federal intervention in state and local affairs did not start with the election of Franklin Roosevelt, or even in 1913, as most patriots today seem mistakenly to believe. It started with Lincoln in the 1860s!

In this context we might well question what radical Thaddeus Stevens’ true motives were in pushing so hard to get the 14th Amendment enacted into law. Vindictive and spiteful though he was, Stevens was no dummy. He had calculated the effect the “emancipation” of the slaves would have on the Republican Party. The federal constitution only allowed for three fifths of the unfree population to be counted in apportioning representatives for the Southern states. Now, if the slaves were “free” their whole number would suddenly be counted. Stevens’ calculations showed that, should Southern representatives be able to enter Congress, the Democrats would have a solid majority, and no radical Republican legislation could be enacted if such were the case. In order that such not be allowed to occur and thus damage the Republicans plans for a one party state, Southerners must not be allowed to share in the national government. At least they must not be allowed to share in it until the Constitution could be so amended as “to secure perpetual ascendancy to the party of the Union.” Stevens’ desire for basically a one party state is consistent with most socialist societies.

Stevens thought an appropriate amendment would be one that changed the basis for representation to the number of people in a particular state entitled to vote at that time. Stevens figured that would reduce the Southern congressional membership from 83 down to 46.

Stevens, from time to time, put his foot in his mouth and expressed his heart-felt desires. When the second 13th Amendment was passed on December 18, 1865, over seven months after Lincoln’s death, Stevens gave his arguments for maintaining the Republican Party in perpetual power. He said: “It is time that Congress should assert its authority and assume something of the dignity of a Roman senate.” His concept of how much power Congress should have was not in keeping with constitutional limits. But then socialists with visions of one party states are seldom fond of potential limits on their power.

Richard Nelson Current, in his book Old Thad Stevens (page 230) stated: “Now that he had suspended the checks of a tripartite system of government, at least for a time, Stevens turned to the problem of getting public opinion on his side. In his daily mail he was receiving the praises of carpetbaggers and scalawags in the South.” Current’s comments revealed how little Stevens cared for the system of checks and balances supposedly put in the Constitution.  He just worked around them to achieve his revolutionary ends, just like much of Congress does today, in which he and others sought to completely restructure the American system of government. What Stevens and others of his ilk wanted was an amendment that would forever consolidate the Northern victory over the South. Many that sought this as eagerly as Stevens were men of considerable financial means, men in the railroad and iron industries in the North. After all, they reasoned, a little corporate fascism never hurt anybody, right? At least nobody important!

One brief note here as I close this out is a further  proof that our “history” books today do not give us anything to really grapple with. I have mentioned this previously but a little repetition does no harm.  When he was formulating the 14th Amendment, one of the people Thaddeus Stevens took advice from was Robert Dale Owen, son of the well-known English socialist. Worth noting here is the fact that Stevens was willing to take advice from the son of a well-known socialist,  who also had socialist leanings himself. It seems, in our day, that what we refer to as “historians” have, for our own good, decided that we do not need to be made aware of such things. In all the American history books I read in school, and in other places as well, I have never seen the first reference to Robert Dale Owen having ever had anything to do with the 14th Amendment. After all, students having to deal with possible socialist influence on the 14th Amendment might just disrupt the “fantasy island” image of our history that our handlers have concocted for us.

If people in our Congress were taking the advice of socialists in the 1860s then can we really be naïve enough to believe that our problems with socialism and communism in this country didn’t start until the first third of the 20th century?

If apostasy produced national decline and neglect, it started happening lots earlier than most  people, Christians included, will ever be willing to admit. And a final thought–if the War of Northern Aggression was responsible for the decline of orthodox Christianity in the South then what was orthodox Christianity in the South replaced with–theologically speaking? Ponder on that for awhile.


3 thoughts on “Socialism And The 14th Amendment

  1. 14th Amendment Was Never Ratified!

    By Moses E. Washington
    Revised 6/1/2003
    Posted by Al Barrs, Jr. TRUE AMERICAN HISTORY

    The material in this essay is for educational purposes only and not to be construed as legal advice about what you should or should not do. The information herein is to assist you in performing your own due diligence before implementing any strategy…

    Formal notice is hereby given that: You have 10 days after reviewing any material on this Website to notify Truth Sets Us Free (TSUF) in writing of any word, phrase, reference or statement which is inaccurate, incorrect, misleading or not in full compliance with state and Federal law and to give TSUF 30 days to correct and cure any alleged potential flaw. TSUF’s intent is to be in strict compliance with the law.

    What we now call the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the most controversial
    Amendment that has ever been proposed! (Among other controversial amendments were the other two “Reconstruction Amendments” passed by a rump vindictive radical Union Congress: Amendments 13, 14, 15.–Al Barrs

    We will see that its proposal and ratification process was fraught with irregularities and unconstitutional actions.

    Congress Approves but the States Ratify Amendments to the Constitution!

    In addition to approving proposed amendments, Congress has the power to amend the Constitution (, but it doesn’t have the constitutional power to ratify any Amendments. Amending the Constitution is a long and arduous process.

    Constitution Article 5, Amending the U.S. Constitution:
    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate

    Both chambers of the Congress must approve the proposed constitutional amendment by a two-thirds majority, after which the measure is sent to the States. The proposed congressional approved amendment must then be approved by three-quarters of State legislatures or citizens in in conference.

    In order to provide historical background for the period in question, let’s review some events that occurred after the Civil War ended. In 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a “Proclamation of Amnesty” for former Southern state residents. This action was in keeping with President Lincoln’s wishes to heal the nation. (Lincoln should have wished to heal the nation–it was him who started his Tariff War, a little short low casualty war that got away from him!

    Johnson established provisional governments in each of the southern states. (These do called “provisional governments were nothing more than Martial Law administered with iron hands and the sward by Union military officers!–Al Barrs) The Southern States were instructed ordered to call constitutional conventions in order to form new governments. Each Southern state formed new governments and elected new representatives and government officers. (However if the elected delegates did not act in accordance with the Union Military directors they would dismiss the elected delegates and appoint delegates who did what the Commanders told them to do, including what to vote against and what to vote on! This Martial law action on the part of the Union military commanders formed what came to be called “rump” legislatures, which means a legislative body would be part duly elected delegates and part Union Military Commander appointed delegates…–Al Barrs) At that time, only white men had the right to vote in the Union, since the 15th Amendment which established equal voting rights had not yet been approved nor ratified by the States.

    Senators and Representatives for the U.S. Congress from the former Confederate States of America were also elected by the people or selected by the Union Martial Law Commander. These Southern states representatives were refused admission by the Union Congress when they appear at the opening of the U.S. Congress. The various Southern state governments continued to function during 1866. (The Union Congress blatantly violated their own Constitution by denying the Southern States their constitutional right to vote even though they had been reinstated into the Union with the right of Suffrage, the right to vote, by President Andrew Johnson!–Al Barrs)

    Before an Amendment can be “ratified” by the States, it must first be proposed…

    The U.S. Constitution provides two methods of proposing an Amendment: By two thirds of the States or by two thirds of both houses of Congress.

    The congressional amending method was used in the case of the 14th Amendment. 1) The Constitutional Article 5 Section that discusses amendments reads: “No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal “suffrage” (vote) in the U.S. Senate”! 2) When the U.S. Congress “proposed” the 14th Amendment, twenty-three Senators were unlawfully excluded (They were “locked out” of the U.S. Senate chambers who refused to seat these constitutional delegates!–Al Barrs) from the U. S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for the adoption of proposed Amendment. Those Senators excluded and locked out of the Senate chambers included both Senators from eleven Southern States and one Senator from New Jersey. This constitutional failure by the U.S. Senate alone is sufficient to invalidate the so-called fourteenth Amendment because it was never properly proposed and never properly ratified by the States!

    1 U.S. Constitution, Article 5
    2 ibid.

    When an amendment is proposed by the Congress, it must be “ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths of the States …”

    3) When the proposed amendment was sent to the States for ratification, there were thirty-seven states in the Union/United States. This means that ratification required the approval of twenty-eight states!

    Said another way, it would only take ten states rejecting the 14th Amendment to defeat it.
    The congressionally proposed 14th Amendment was sent to the States for ratification in June of 1866. …By March 1867, twenty States had ratified and thirteen had rejected the proposed 14th Amendment. This mean that the amendment failed!!!

    These totals do not include the actions of Tennessee, which is generally regarded as ratifying the proposed 14th Amendment. The Tennessee legislature was not in session when the proposed 14th Amendment was sent, so a special session of the Tennessee legislature had to be called.

    The Tennessee “Senate” ratified the proposed 14th Amendment. However, the Tennessee House of Representatives could not assemble a quorum as required in order to legally act…

    Finally, after several days and “considerable effort (Pressure and military force from United State Military Martial Law Commanders,–Al Barrs) two of the recalcitrant members of the House were arrested and brought into a committee room opening into the Chamber of the House by U.S. Military troops. They refused to vote when their names were called, whereupon the Speaker ruled that there was no quorum!

    The Speaker’s decision, however, was overruled, and the Amendment was declared ratified on July 19, 1866, by a vote of 43 to 11, the two members under arrest in the adjoining committee
    room not voting.” 4) After learning that the proposed amendment’s failure, the U.S. Congress unconstitutionally passed the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867 (14th Amendment).

    This unconstitutional act of the Tennessee House of Representative’s “Speaker” overthrew and annulled the existing Southern State governments of the ten southern states that had rejected the ratification of the 14th Amendment!!!

    Recall that these new Southern State governments had just been established in 1865 with new State Constitutions. The unconstitutional act by the Tennessee House Speaker, sanctioned by the hostile U.S. Congress, placed these States under Union martial law and required the ratification of the proposed amendment before Southern States could be readmitted to representation in the U.S. Congress, (which was unconstitutional and only achieved at the barrel of Union guns!–Al Barrs)

    U.S. President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Reconstruction Act because he believed it was

    President Johnson’s veto message read: “I submit to Congress whether this measure is
    not in its whole character, scope and object without precedent and without authority, in
    palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive
    of those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of
    the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure.” President
    Johnson went on to point out that each of the Southern States had “legitimate” United States governments!

    “It is not denied that the States in question have each of them an actual government with
    all the powers, executive, judicial, and legislative, which properly belong to a free State.”

    3 ibid.
    4 Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, H. E. Flack, p. 165; Tenn. House Journal (Extra Session), 1866,
    p. 25

    “They are organized like the other States of the Union, and, like them, they make,
    administer, and execute the laws which concern their domestic affairs!”

    The U.S. Congress was undaunted as it overrode the President’s veto of the Reconstruction Act.

    After the Reconstruction Act was passed (unconstitutionally passed and the President’s veto overridden), two states (Nebraska and Iowa) ratified the proposed amendment and three states (New Jersey, Ohio and Oregon; 5) reversed their ratifications! So, without considering the actions taken under reconstruction, the final tally was nineteen for, sixteen against, and two (California and Tennessee) not acting.

    As a result of the “Reconstruction Acts” three Amendments were passed by the U.S. Congress in total between the dates of March 2 and July 19, 1867. The ten Southern States were organized by Union Military officers into military districts in which martial law were declared!

    Their lawfully constituted legislature was illegally removed by U.S. “military force” (as in War!) and they were replaced by illegitimate (rump) legislatures selected by the U.S. Military Martial Law commander. Seven of these legislatures eventually was forced and bribed to ratify the anti-constitutional 14th Amendment.

    The “official” vote tally is another source of controversy!

    On July 20, 1868, William H. Seward, U.S. Secretary of State, issued a Proclamation 6) that listed the “official” results. His tally showed twenty-three states that voluntarily ratified, six states that ratified under martial law military force, military coercion and bribery, and two states that voluntarily reversed their ratifications.

    Seward said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State “to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification”.

    Seward also said that the Amendment (14th) was valid “if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States.”

    Seward’s report also called into question the ratifications of (Southern) States who were under martial Law!

    I think you will agree that Seward’s reservations were rather startling. It is patently obvious to any thinking person that if a State has the right to ratify an amendment that it equally has the right to withdraw the ratification. (Yes, and this same principle applied to the Southern agriculture States what had withdrawn from the Union!–Al Barrs)

    It is equally obvious that any action which is taken under compulsion (southern states vote to ratify) is an invalid action!

    The U.S. Congress was not satisfied with Seward’s proclamation due to the reservations it contained. On July 21, 1868, the U.S. Congress passed a Joint Resolution 7) that declaring that three fourths of the several States of the Union had ratified the 14th Amendment. They had not!

    On July 28, 1868, Seward bowed to the action of U.S. Congress and issued his Proclamation declaring that three-fourths of the states had ratified the Amendment. (Seward falsified and violated the U.S. Constitution!–Al Barrs)

    In such an environment, one would hope that the highest court in our nation, the U.S. Supreme Court, would bring some clarity. But alas, such is not the case. In one of the leading cases on the validity of the 14th Amendment the court stated;

    “The legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina had rejected the 14th Amendment in November and December, 1866. New governments were erected in those States (and in others) under the direction of the U.S. Congress. The new legislatures ratified the Amendment, that of North Carolina on July 4, 1868, that of South Carolina on July 9, 1868, and that of Georgia on July 21, 1868.” 8) In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court did not bother to rule on the constitutionality of the U.S. Congress sweeping away valid State legislatures in the Reconstruction Acts. The U.S. Supreme Court overlooked that it previously had held that at no time were these Southern States out of the Union 9) (We know that’s false. True Lincoln would never admit that the agriculture states had seceded from the Union, and in that case Lincoln had ordered military assaults and “Civil War” on the withdrawn Southern agriculture state’s residents!–Al Barrs)

    5 Oregon Senate Journal, 1868, pp. 66 and 131; Oregon House Journal, 1868, p. 273
    6 Statutes at Large, v 15, p. 706
    7 House Journal; 40th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 1126.

    In the Coleman case, the court did make a slip to reveal that they understood what had happened in the case of the 14th Amendment:

    “Whenever official notice is received at the U.S. Department of State that any Amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the constitutional provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the U. S. Secretary of State shall forthwith (immediately) cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.” [Emphasis Added]

    The Supreme Court, in the Coleman case, did lightly review questions pertaining to the unconstitutional ratification of the 14th Amendment, and of attempts by two States to rescind their previous ratification of the Amendment.

    “…the question of the efficacy of ratifications by State legislatures, in the light of previous rejection or attempted withdrawal, should be regarded as a political question pertaining to the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the U.S. Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the Amendment.” [Emphasis Added]

    One would hope that the highest court in the land (The U.S. Supreme Court) would properly exercise their Constitutional responsibilities to provide “check and balances” to the other branches of the Federal Government. The Supreme Court jurist’s statement that it was an issue for the political arena was an act of cowardice and wholly inconsistent with the high court’s pattern of judicial statutory annulment!!!

    The precedent for judicial statutory annulment was established in 1803 where The Court ruled “”…it is apparent that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the Government of courts, as well as that of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it?” 10) The unconstitutional practice of “judicial review” [as it is also called] continues on even to this day.

    “Judicial Review” too was a Supreme Court created “doctrine” not a law! Congress does not create nor the President sign It was an act of Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshal in 1803 to create a precedence sign a “doctrine”–The Court creates it out of thin air to serve their own political purpose! The Court would use Court Created precedence and doctrines to base their future case decisions rather than relying on the Constitution and Bill of Rights as it is sworn to do! It supplanted the Founders “separation of powers” doctrine and gave the U.S. Supreme Court authority over the other two Government Branches; the Legislative and the Executive Branches!!! President and doctrines are nothing more than a rogue court’s attempt to bypass the Constitution!–Al Barrs)

    8 Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S.Ct. 972 (1938)
    9 White v. Hart (1871), 13 Wall. 646, 654
    10 Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

    It is often used as a legal tool to justify taking a position that differs from the legislature when the court wants to nullify a law.

    It appears that the court uses this technique only when it suites their motive and not necessarily when necessary to protect the rights of the citizens.

    The legal validity of the ratification of the 14th Amendment has often been disputed. The
    Utah Supreme Court once ruled that the ratification of the 14th Amendment was invalid 11) For more than a hundred years now, the courts have applied the 14th Amendment to cases that have come before them. And although questions have been raised about both its language meaning and the legal correctness of its adoption process, Federal challenges to the ratification of the 14th Amendment have always fallen on deaf ears. Its long time usage and the lateness of the hour doctrines have allowed the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the 14th Amendment as law (It isn’t law, it is unconstitutional!–Al Barrs) 12)

    11 See Dyett vs. Turner, 439 Pacific 266 (1968), and the numerous other cites therein.
    12 See Coleman vs. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).

  2. Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln, Penpals
    By Eugene Wolters

    Karl Marx invented communism. Sort of. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves (not because he actually thought blacks were equal to whites, but because he thought “live and let live, right bro?”). So what the hell were these two writing to each other about? Apparently slavery, and how it sucked.

    I first stumbled upon this letter from Karl Marx (on behalf of the International Working Men’s Association) congratulating Lincoln on his re-election. Marx acknowledges that working white folks have been pretty shitty to black slaves and that laborers everywhere should unite on behalf of the battle over slavery. He writes:

    While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

    The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes.

    And thank god the North won, because Europe was really missing their cotton. Marx tells Lincoln that the laborers in Europe have been patiently waiting out the “hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis” in support of their enslaved comrades.

    The best part? Lincoln replied, or at least his ambassador in London did (where Marx was located). The reply doesn’t say much, other than conveying a generic sense of gratitude and agreeing slavery is bad:

    So far as the sentiments expressed by it are personal, they are accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.

    You can find the whole exchange here from There is also an entire book, “An Unfinished Revolution,” about Marx’s and Lincoln’s letter exchanges. Whether or not the book encompasses more than these 2 letters is vague. The description reads.

    Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln exchanged letters at the end of the Civil War, with Marx writing on behalf of the International Working Men’s Association. Although they were divided by far more than the Atlantic Ocean, they agreed on the urgency of suppressing slavery and the cause of “free labor.” In his introduction Robin Blackburn argues that Lincoln’s response to the IWA was a sign of the importance of the German American community as well as of the role of the International in opposing European recognition of the Confederacy.

    Karl Marx’s Letter To Abraham Lincoln
    Address of the International Working Men’s Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

    Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
    January 28, 1865


    We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

    From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

    When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding “the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution”, and maintained slavery to be “a beneficent institution”, indeed, the old solution of the great problem of “the relation of capital to labor”, and cynically proclaimed property in man “the cornerstone of the new edifice” — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders’ rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

    While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

    The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world. [B]

    Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen’s Association, the Central Council:

    Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;

    George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary.

  3. Pingback: Socialism And The 14th Amendment | Land & Livestock International, Inc.

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