by Al Benson Jr.
Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America
Every once in awhile I (and lots of others) ask questions of those liberals and Marxists that disagree with us as they seek to portray the South and its inhabitants as evil racists and partakers of something they refer to as “white privilege.”
Many, if not most, of the “you are all evil white racists” crowd persist in promoting the canard that the South only fought the “Civil War” so Southern folks could hang onto their slaves. And along with that utter foolishness they continue to parrot the discredited line that “the North fought the war to free the slaves.” So I have a question for these folks. I’ve asked it before, but since no answer has been forthcoming, I will ask it again.
If the North was so gung ho to free the slaves that they were willing to fight against the South to do so, why didn’t they start their emancipation process by first freeing those slaves that were in bondage in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri? For one reason or another, all four of those states ended up remaining in the Union and, as such, wouldn’t it have been logical for the North to free all the slaves in those state first? No liberal, socialist, or communist (but I repeat myself here) has ever answered that question for me. In fact, they rather ignore it. The slaves in those slave states that stayed, for whatever reason, under Union control were not freed until the 13th Amendment was ratified, after the War was over.
In Missouri, socialist lover John Fremont enacted some sort of emancipation proclamation early in the War and Mr. Lincoln promptly annulled that action. One would almost think that Lincoln did not agree that the war was being fought to free the slaves, but that he had some other agenda in mind–such as preserving the Union by the force of arms. Again, this question has never been answered for me, so I am left with the conclusion that our Leftist friends do not have an answer to it and so they pretend it was never asked.
In another instance, I wrote an article a few years back noting that one of the main issues in the War was the question of tariffs and how much those tariffs harmed the Southern economy. To this article, I got a snide reply from some kind of Yankee activist, who blithely informed me that “Slavery was the real issue in this war. Tariffs are a dead letter.” Do I need to state that I disagreed with him? To him, and others of his ilk, my question is this: Why, if tariffs were such a “dead letter” did Lincoln, in an interview with Colonel John B. Baldwin of Virginia, as reported in R. L. Dabney’s book Discussions state that if he let the South go “Then what would become of my tariffs?” Dabney noted here, “Hence, when Virginia offered him a safe way to preserve the Union, he preferred to destroy the Union and preserve his tariffs. The war was conceived in duplicity and brought forth in iniquity.”
Some have contended that Lincoln was, somehow, involved with the Illuminists, and, while I can’t say that for sure, actions like this on his part surely do make one wonder. We know he was involved with the socialists and Marxists. Donnie Kennedy and I showed that much in Lincoln’s Marxists so is it any great leap to think his involvement may have gone even further?
My third question (remember I noted the possibility of three questions in my title to this article) is another one I have never heard addressed. is–how can a political entity that is no longer a state in the Union ratify the 14th Amendment in order to get back into a Union they are no longer a part of? You see, that’s what happened with the 14th Amendment. The Kennedy Brothers, in their book, The South Was Right noted this on page 172 of the second edition of that book. They stated, in part, “The North, 1n 1866, removed the Southern states from the Union. This was the same Union that in 1861 refused to let the South secede from the Union. This same North now declared the Southern states to be non-states. To get back into the Union (that originally the South did not want to be part of anyway, and from which it had previously been denied the right to secede), it was required to perform the function of a state in that Union, while still officially no longer a part of the Union by ratifying an amendment that previously as states in that Union it had legally rejected!”
Sorry, but I guess here I have yet another question. If the Southern states ratified the 14th Amendment while they were still not officially part of the Union, are their ratifications even legal? That’s a question I think should be asked and I have never seen anyone ask it. How come? I supposed there is kind of a twisted Yankee/Marxist “logic” to this situation. After all, if the federal government can force non-states to ratify amendments in order to again become legitimate states, then why, in our own day can’t we allow illegal immigrants and other non-citizens to vote in our elections? After all, some of them might become citizens some day. And if you can just bring in enough of them, especially those who are here for the freebies, to tip the vote totals so that citizens can be outvoted by non-citizens in many areas, then you have effectively begun to change the attitudes and the direction this country is going in. Those of you who are in favor of letting every overseas Tom, Dick, and Harry vote in our elections maybe ought to think about that.
And as far as my original questions go, no one has ever satisfactorily answered them so I am still waiting. The Leftists among us prefer not to deal with these issues, but I think, so long as they insist on bringing them up, we should force them to.