Was Lincoln the First Deep State President?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Given the way Lincoln sought to govern I think the title of this article is a legitimate question. He had the soul of a socialist dictator, a prerequisite for being part of the Deep State. He most definitely had an agenda worked out before he even got into office–and a big part of that agenda was his plan to break the armistice with the Confederate States of South Carolina and Florida and reinforce both Forts Sumter and Pickens with troops and then blame the South for “starting” the war.

The establishment media in the North endorsed what he was doing, just as the mainstream media in our day endorses all the socialist Democrats are now doing in their attempt to take Trump down. The “news” media, then as now, was bought and paid for. There were exceptions, but the problem was that the exceptions were exceptions. Just like today!

Lincoln’s view of the foundations of the country would have been one any Deep Stater in our day would love. Lincoln disabused himself of any idea that the individual states seceded from Great Britain. Nothing so simple as that for Lincoln. No,  for him, the undissolvable Union had always existed, way back before the states were even thought about. One big and growing monolith–manifest destiny at its greatest!

Awhile back I read an article on http://www.quebecoislibre.org from way back in August 15, 2008 by Chris Leithner in which he dealt with Lincoln and his attitudes about slavery and the war. Leithner said of Lincoln that: “Abraham Lincoln, then, was not the Great Emancipator: he was the Great Warmonger and imperialist, the Great Racist, the Great Taxer-and-Spender, the Great Corruptionist, the Great Incarcerator and the Great Vandal of the Constitution. He was a war criminal and America’s worst-ever president.” Maybe worse than Obama, even, though that would be hard to imagine. Maybe they’d tie for first place among worst presidents. The point is, though,  that all the things here that Leithner accuses Lincoln of are all major hallmarks of the Deep State mentality. It’s the way they all think and operate today. So was 1860 any different? Not so’s you’d notice.

In regard to the War of Northern Aggression, Leithner notes that “…perhaps the most despicable (lie) of all is that the War of Northern Aggression was necessary. Only war, say its mythologizers and apologists, could have ended slavery.  The truth, of course, is that it was a war of choice and not necessity.” And it was Lincoln’s choice–he wanted the war so badly that he broke the armistice with two Southern states to get us into it. I noted as much in my article for this blog on October 22nd, in the book review I posted on that date.

Wars have ever been a tactic of the Deep State, wars to divide and conquer, wars that do not really need to be fought, but wars that make the denizens of the Deep State and their friends lots of money and gain them lots of influence and power in areas they have no business in. The Deep State and its Neo-con allies will keep us fighting in the Middle East until the end of the next millennium if they have their way. Were  Lincoln and the promoters of “Manifest Destiny” any different?

And were there people other than Lincoln that wanted a war? History would seem to indicate there were. I’ve read articles about seven different state governors in the North that pushed Lincoln to go to war. And what about some in Lincoln’s own cabinet and in Congress that so hated the South they were willing to do anything to see the South destroyed? Lincoln was not all by his lonesome here. He had lots of war-mongering companionship, from Edwin Stanton to Thad Stevens to Ben Wade and a whole host of apostates in the North too numerous to mention here. There were even a handful in the South that probably constituted what we refer to as the Deep State of the 1860s.

Leithner’s article noted to absurdity of “the war was fought to free the slaves” narrative when he observed: “On the day that hostilities commenced at Fort Sumter, only the seven states of the Deep South had seceded, there were more slaves within the Union that outside it and Lincoln hadn’t the slightest intention to free any of them.” He maintained that position until after the Battle of Sharpsburg when it became advantageous for him to start prattling about emancipation–mostly to keep Britain and France from helping the South out. All of a sudden emancipation became the new Deep State reason for fighting the war. That lie has been maintained by the Deep State ever since and has become their main vehicle for tearing the South and its heritage down.

Don’t for a New York minute think the Deep State doesn’t want to totally destroy the South and all she has stood for. That destruction is the first part of their agenda to tear this country down. And now we are beginning to see even more of the Deep State’s “hate America” campaign, much of it promoted by leftist thugs like Antifa.

So, no, the Deep State is not new. In one form or another, it has been around since at least the French Revolution. It reared its head in this country noticeably in the 1850s with the advent of the new Republican Party and with the coming on the scene of Lincoln and his socialist buddies from Europe in 1848 and thereafter. Now it’s out there trying to take Trump down. It seems that the more things change the more they stay the same.

Lots of Millennials to Vote Socialist

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Just read an article on the Zero Hedge website this morning (10/28) that noted that 7 out of every 10 millennials now claims they will vote socialist. This according to a report by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.

The article noted that “The report found that support for communism increased by 36% from 2018’s numbers as capitalism continues to go out of style. It’s likely due to a shift in higher education, where Marxist ideology is taught favorably.” This is hardly the entire problem, though. Marxist ideology has been taught favorably in institutions of “higher learning” in this country for at least the past three generations, and most likely to some extent, before that. So this is hardly a recent development, though it may be more flagrantly evident right now that it was in the past.

As to what constitutes a “millennial” according to some reports, it is someone born between the early 1980s and 1990s. Some do include kids born in the early 2000s. Roughly people between their mid-teens and mid-30s.

The article observed that “…only 57% of millennials said they believe the Declaration of Independence better ‘guarantees freedom and equality’ compared to the Communist Manifesto.’ And one in five millennials indicated that ‘society would be better if all private property was abolished.'”

So, if we take these figures at face value that means that 43% of our millennials favor the Communist Manifesto over the Declaration of Independence!

What can you say to this? It seems evident that education, at least in the public sector, in this country has been severely tampered with and that real education has been subtly replaced with Marxist propaganda, which most parents of college age students are blithely, totally, unaware of. It would seem as if Red China’s Cultural Revolution has quietly taken place here and no one has bothered to inform us.

Then the question also arises–why have our college students been so eager to embrace Marxist thought? If they had never heard any of this until their college years, wouldn’t more of them be apt to rebel against it? Admittedly, some would accept it, but not nearly as many.

Again, what does that tell you? If you stop and think about it for a minute, it should tell you that most kids are getting doses of socialism somewhere along the line in grades K-12 and that, by the time they get to college they have had enough socialist indoctrination in the earlier grades that what they are now getting in college seems nothing more than a more advanced course of the same thing they had in high school, or even middle school!

There may be some schools that are the exception to this, but not as many as we could probably hope for.

What we need to start coming to grips with, especially if we are Christians, is that socialist and Marxist propaganda are alive and well in our public school systems in this country. Again, this is not new! I can recall reading books written back in the 1960s about communist propaganda in public schools.

It seems with the advent of more radical socialists in Congress, this problem has become even more aggravated and our public school systems are becoming more and more like the Mainstream Media–apologists for all forms of socialist agendas. Christians, if they are willing to do something, have a solution. They can start taking their kids out of public schools and finding viable Christian alternatives. If you don’t start doing this, and soon, the kids you lose will be your own!

Public Education–an exercise in state socialism from day one!

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Before the War of Northern Aggression public schools as we have them today did not exist in the South. Mostly, the Southern States had the good sense to leave education where it belonged–in the hands of parents. After the War, public schools were forced upon the defeated South so that the ascendency of the Radical Republican Deep State of that day could be pushed down the throats of Southern folks so that their children would be taught Yankee/Marxist propaganda passing as education.

That sad version of history has continued to this day and only gotten worse.

It goes without saying that there have been many dedicated and sincere public school teachers over the years. I have known several myself, teachers whose integrity I do not question. They have honestly sought to impart knowledge and truth to the kids they taught. The system they have labored in, however, is corrupt, and has, in a sense sold the honest teachers out, betrayed their efforts.

Since our days in the West Virginia Textbook Protest, back in the mid-1970s, I have studied, where possible, the trajectory of the public school system. Its beginnings as a tool of the anti-Christian Unitarians and socialists has been well documented so I won’t get into it here. I have done so in the past. One source you should check out in this regard is the book Crimes of the Educators–How utopians are using government schools to destroy America’s children. This was written in 2014 by Sam Blumenfeld and Alex Newman and published by World Net Daily. Believe me, it is worth checking out.

Other than Horace Mann and Robert Owen, one of the most pernicious characters in the history of public education has been John Dewey This could be said to be the “holy trinity” of public education.

Many have mistakenly viewed John Dewey as a paragon of public education. Dewey wasn’t an educator. He was a social engineer. An article on https://upstreampolitics.wordpress.com for 2/28/13 stated that “Dewey and other progressives viewed the school as an agent of change. He was not so much an educator as a social engineer who saw education as a means to an end.” The article continued: “From my limited reading on Dewey I must agree. Education was a Trojan horse through which Dewey and other progressives could effect their utopia…Dewey saw education as an instrument of change.” In other words, Dewey was what we refer to as a “change agent.” He was not there to educate. He was there to change attitudes and social mores–something no parent had given him the authority to tamper with. But he didn’t need parental authority–he just usurped what have never been given to him. And while we are talking about it, the term “progressive” is just another word for socialist!

I got a quote from John Dewey off a site called Liberty Tree. Dewey said: “The teacher is engaged not simply in the training of individuals,  but in the formation of the proper social life…In this way, the teacher always in the prophet of the true God and the usherer-in of the true Kingdom of God.” Seeing that Dewey was an atheist and socialist, one has to wonder what, to him, was the “true God.” It certainly was not the God of Holy Scripture–Dewey had long since rejected Him! And what did he consider the Kingdom of God to be? The public school system?

An informative article on https://www.theepochtimes.com by Alex Newman for 10/24/19 noted: “Widely recognized as the founding father of America’s ‘progressive’ public education system, John Dewey was a man on an unprecedented religious mission. With more fervor and devotion than many Christian missionaries or  Islamic jihadists, he set out to win America over to his religious worldview. Like the collectivists whose shoulders he stood upon, government-controlled education was Dewey’s weapon of choice. And now, more than a century after he began, it’s clear that Dewey and his disciples are winning–big time.” And that is not an assertion that Christians should take any comfort in!

Newman continued: “In a previous article in this series, Dewey’s well-known collectivist views were documented, including his fascination with the Soviet Union and his desire to radically transform the United States into a socialist nation.” He utilized the public schools toward that end. Sounds as if AOC and her socialist Democratic friends would have loved Dewey. He wanted what they all long for–a socialist United States and they are not bashful anymore about admitting that.

If you look at all these kids in our day who long for socialism (without really understanding what it is they want), how many of them do you think have been “educated” in public schools? The vast majority have. That tells you what the public schools are really doing!

I wish I knew a way to wake the Christians in this country up to this so they would give a tinker’s damn about it, but if there’s a way to do that, I haven’t discovered it yet.

Is AOC Just Another Shill For The UN?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

If you look closely at AOC’s Green New Deal you get the funny feeling you’ve seen and heard some of it someplace before she touted it. If you got that feeling when you first heard about it, you were right. You had heard some of it before, someplace else, and where you heard of it before was in the United Nations Agenda 21 scam, er, I mean scheme.

Daniel John Sobieski wrote, in an article on https://www.lifesitenews.com on October 23rd of this year that: “In a piece on Watt’s Up With That, Nancy Thorner calls the Green New Deal ‘the boldest tactic yet to advance U.N. Agenda 21: …Enter the Green New Deal, the boldest tactic yet, as proposed by AOC when the Democrat Socialists took control of the House in the 2018 midterms. The origins and the purpose of the Green New Deal are not unlike the positive-sounding objectives of Agenda 21: to protect the environment  and make a better life for all of us.  In that the forces of Agenda 21 were becoming both impatient and scared because after 27 years Agenda 21 had not yet been realized, coupled with the growing apprehension that people around the world were starting to wise up to the real nature of Agenda 21, permitted the cloak of deception to be removed to reveal the true goals of the Green New Deal, socialism and global control as a way to advance Agenda 21.'”

If such is true, and it does seem to be, then you have to ask yourself–Is AOC just another highly paid political shill for the United Nations? Just because she is in Congress would not rule that possibility (probability) out. AOC is a raving socialist. The UN is, to put it charitably, a socialist entity.

Mr. Sobieski observes: “Something wicked this way comes, and it is called the Green New Deal. The direct descendant of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, it will, if fully implemented, complete President Obama’s promised fundamental transformation of America from the land of the free to the home of the impoverished and enslaved.” That’s what Obama, with his Marxist proclivities, had in mind all along. He just didn’t dare tell you that, otherwise many of the useful idiots that voted for him might not have and he needed their votes to get in so he could transform us into the socialist entity he and his handlers planned for us to become.

Needless to say, part of Agenda 21’s wonderful plan for our lives is the doing away with private property. Karl Marx would have loved them for this. It was part of his plan for this country back in the day. That and the doing away with the Christian faith. Even today the UN is still working on that one. In my last article I noted that the UN was not anti-religious–it was and is anti-Christ. Its god is the god of this present world system.

After all, if we are to have what Agenda 21 calls “sustainable development” then we must dispense with all private property because private property leads to “social injustice.” Where have you heard that lately? Probably from some of our socialists in Congress!

Know one thing about these socialists in Congress. None of them are truly their own persons. They are all bought and paid for shills for some “authority” higher than themselves. Don’t be naïve enough to think they are there to help those that voted them into office. That’s a truly foolish notion. They are there to further the agendas of those who rule over them, whether it be the Deep State or the United Nations, or George Soros, or whoever, and in the final analysis, is there any difference between any of those mentioned in this sentence? They all have the same worldview–and the same god.

An article by Alex Newman in The New American for October 21st noted: “Despite globalism-skeptic President Donald Trump being in the White House, the United Nations is behaving more like the global government it seeks to become. Indeed, in recent years, the UN has continued escalating its attacks on America on subjects ranging from immigration policy and border security to abortion, health care, and the protection of God-given rights. It is now at the point where senior UN officials are barking orders at the U.S. government as if America were a mere administrative unit in what globalists describe as the “New World Order.” And the battle may be heating up.”

One thing bothering the UN is the tendency of some states here to begin passing pro-life laws that restrict abortion. According to the United Nations killing pre-born babies is a human right. Not many folks seem to realize that the United Nations they were taught to love in public school advocates the killing of pre-born babies as a “human right.” In fact, you could look at the frenzy to kill unborn babies in our day as a modern form of Molech worship, which probably not bother the UN nearly as much as the worship of Jesus Christ seems to.

None of these issues is, at root, political–they are all theological issues. And unless more Christians in this country begin to wake up and smell the coffee, they may well end up being on the wrong side of some of these issues. When these issues are viewed in a theological context, I can see very little in the United Nations that a Bible-believing Christian can support–and much they should oppose.

The United Nations–a blasphemous religious organization

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

In his book Freedom on the Alter, author William Norman Grigg noted, on page 157 that: “Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the prophet of the French Revolution, insisted, ‘no state has ever been established without a religious base.” Much as I hate to agree with the likes of Rousseau, he is correct on this one point. Religious faith, of one sort or another is prevalent in every human endeavor, even where people either deny it or don’t realize it.

Grigg observed that “This was true of the murderous Revolutionary French regime, which…was based Rousseau’s ‘civil religion,…”

In a blasphemous attempt to make the United Nations palatable to Christian folks in this country, Robert Muller, former U.N. Assistant Secretary General, said “If Christ came back to earth, his first visit would be to the United Nations to see if his dream of human oneness and brotherhood had come true. Muller has suggested that the UN itself symbolizes the ‘body of Christ’ and that people worldwide should ‘display the UN flag in all houses of worship’.”

It seems that Muller felt that one world government was also a major step toward one world religion. To compare the true Body of Christ, the Christian Church, to the United Nations is truly a blasphemous undertaking. In a sense you can say that the true seeds of the United Nations were sewn in the barbaric French Revolution. Which revolution also spawned the socialist 1848 revolts in Europe that sent so many communists and socialists to this country to try to help Lincoln accomplish here what they had not been able to do in Europe. To anyone capable of serious reflection it should be doubly obvious that there was nothing “Christian” about any of this!

These are the people that want to take over the rearing of your children, whether in public schools or otherwise. According to a UNICEF motto “Every child is our child.” And that is the attitude of the United Nations.

Grigg has said that “For millennia, political elites have sought to destroy the social primacy of the family as a means of aggrandizing the state. Within the warm fuzziness of the catch-phrase ‘it takes a whole village to raise a child’ resides the malignant ambition to destroy the divinely ordained family as an independent source of social authority.”

If you want to do a little research on the UN, then check out whatever you can find out about UNESCO and UNICEF. UNESCO has been so egregious that this country refuses to fund it anymore now that Trump is in office. He should just quit funding the United Nations altogether, as a more anti-American organization does not exist anywhere, except for the Democratic Party in this country. They might give the UN a run for its money when it comes to blatant anti-Americanism!

And when it comes to the tearing down of our Second Amendment, just check out where the UN stands on gun control/confiscation. Check out “The UN and gun control.”

I realize I am asking folks to do a little homework on this go-round, but sometimes if you look some of this stuff up and see it for yourselves it might be a tad more potent than just having me tell you about it.

Rousseau had some rather disturbing ideas about public education. Grigg noted: “The role of public education, he declared,  was to imbue children with a reverence for the state as a ‘tender mother’ and teach them ‘to will nothing contrary to the will of society…’.” Public education was supposed to teach kids to be subservient to the state (or to the United Nations).

October is the anniversary month for the United Nations, in fact, if I recall, the 24th is the actual anniversary. Many have accused the United Nations of being “anti-god” but that is not quite accurate. The United Nations worships a god, but it is not the God of Holy Scripture. The UN is not anti-god. Rather it is anti-Christ. There is a big difference, and Christians need to become aware of that big difference.

Lincoln (and not the South) Broke the Covenant (and started the war)

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Years ago I picked up a book in a used book store called Promise of Glory, written by a C. X. Moreau. It was historical fiction about the Battle of Sharpsburg in 1862. It was a good book and I enjoyed it, so I hung onto it. It was good historical fiction and I agreed with much of it, but there was one place in it where the author got his history wrong.

In one place, on page 38, Moreau made a statement I have to disagree with. He wrote: “There was no way around that. They (the South) had broken the faith. Lee, Jackson, all of them. Late at night, around their campfires, with a bottle going around, his officers spoke of it in hushed voices.”

The whole idea of it, from this one little fictional exchange, was that, somehow, the War was the fault of the South. Supposedly they started it when they fired on Fort Sumter, and now that they had broken the Covenant there was no turning back. Needless to say, I disagree.

Recently, I got a letter from a friend in New Jersey, along with a copy of a book, a thin little volume called The Truth of the War Conspiracy of 1861. The little book was written by Huger William Johnstone, who had served with the 5th Georgia Volunteers during the War of Northern Aggression.

My friend’s letter noted that: “I didn’t know that an armistice between the Federal government and the Confederate government existed until I read this book a few years ago. Lincoln had several plans to break that armistice and actually did break it by reinforcing Fort Pickens in Pensacola, Florida on the evening of April 11th. Just a few hours before the bombardment of Fort Sumter began. Lincoln broke that armistice on March 12, before he was inaugurated–by ordering the reinforcement of Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens. This act and subsequent violations of the armistice made the North the aggressors, not the South.”

It seems that Mr. Johnstone spent several years going over the records of the War and trying to put much of it together in a coherent manner. He stated, at one point, that “The mystifying dis-arrangement of those records was a work of genius. It seems easy now, but I was years in getting the facts into chronological sequence. In 1917 I succeeded in perfecting proofs fixing the responsibility for the ‘War Between the States,’ 1861-1865, on one man–Abraham Lincoln.”

Johnstone mentioned a Yankee Major, Major Vogdes, who he later met as General Vogdes, at Fort Adams, Rhode Island. Vogdes recalled the incident in question and stated that he had “…reinforced Fort Pickens before Fort Sumter was attacked, but that this act was overshadowed by the clamor and furor about Fort Sumter.” If his recollection was correct, and we have no reason to think it was not, that means that the North broke the armistice by reinforcing Fort Pickens!

In the process of putting this material together, Johnstone says he “held frequent imaginary conversations, discussions, arguments, with my loyal, trusted friend, the Blade–(my old service sword, which hangs on the wall, environed by books, records, and memories.)” In other words, he used his old sword as something to bounce his ideas and thoughts off as he put this material together.

While this may sound odd to some, it is really not that novel an idea. Many who have no one to talk to in the midst of their research will often bounce their thoughts off some inanimate object to see how they sound on the rebound. In a manner of speaking it is sort of like talking to oneself, or thinking out loud, which is not all that uncommon.

In 1864 Lincoln sent a message to Congress, in December, which emphasized this sentence: “I simply mean to say that the war will cease, on the part of the Government whenever it shall cease on the part of those who began it.” This was classic Lincolnian deception. If the truth were known, the US Government and Lincoln started the war by committing “at least four flagrant acts of war, against two vital points in the South, weeks before Fort Sumter was fired on. That these acts were secret, and the most treacherous known to civilized diplomacy, does not weaken the force of the facts. The secret emphasizes the treachery. Had secret orders been obeyed, or other like orders not miscarried, war would have been openly inaugurated at a point five hundred miles from Fort Sumter, long before Fort Sumter was fired on. That the first open clash was at Fort Sumter, was an accident, caused by a misfit in Abraham Lincoln’s schemes to force war ‘at any risk or cost.'”

Johnstone observed, accurately, that “There was a solemn agreement, an Armistice, existing at Charleston, entered into by the United States Government and South Carolina officials on December 6th, 1860; and a special agreement, armistice, at Pensacola, entered into by the United States and Florida authorities on January 29th, 1861,–(both filed in United States War and Navy Departments–by which the United States agreed not to attempt to reinforce Major Anderson, nor Fort Pickens; and South Carolina, Florida and the Confederate authorities, agreed to make no attack on Major Anderson, or Fort Pickens, while these solemn agreements were observed. To violate an armistice is considered a treacherous act of war.” Lincoln violated the armistice and, therefore, started the war!

Johnstone further noted “For either party to prepare to act against a point covered by an armistice, is an act of war. It has been held, and rightly, that for any person to visit a fortification, where an armistice exists, with the intent to advice or plan means or methods, to strengthen such fortification is the act of a spy, a reinforcement, and an act of war. So that any act, any order intended to change the existing status quo at any vital point, especially where an armistice exists, by strengthening, or arranging to strengthen such a place, thus making force necessary, is a treacherous act of war. Yet you say that the United States Government, and Abraham Lincoln, ordered and secretly organized and sent, armed expeditions, under ‘secret’ instructions, to commit acts in violation of existing ‘armistices.’ Why to organize such a force, to mobilize it, for such a purpose, is an act of war. Where an armistice exists, such an order is a flagrant act of war.”

While it may seem that Johnstone is belaboring this point, he is trying to get across the truth he has presented here via repetition. If Lincoln broke the armistice, then Lincoln started the war!

Johnstone notes that: “Bear in mind that Captain Vogdes, U.S. Army was sent with an armed force, on the U.S.S. Brooklyn, to reinforce Fort Pickens, in January 1861; but was stopped by the armistice of January 29th at Pensacola bar, and that this armed force remained there, under Captain Vogdes, on the Brooklyn. As soon as Lincoln became President and Commander-in-Chief, these facts became known to him, officially; and the following order was sent to violate the existing armistice, reinforce Fort Pickens, and inaugurate war. It is well known that General Scott was opposed to war; but he obeyed the Commander-in-Chief, Abraham Lincoln. I quote the record.” (Extract) “Hd. Qtrs. of the Army, Washington, March 12, 1861. Sir: (C) At the first favorable opportunity, you will land your company, reinforce Fort Pickens, and hold same until further orders, etc. By command of Lt. Gen. Scott. Signed E. D. Townsend, Asst. Adjt. Gen.”

On April 11th, at nine in the evening, the Brooklyn landed the troops and marines on board and reinforced Fort Pickens–in violation of the armistice. This occurred the day before Fort Sumter was fired on!

But, the point to be made here is that this whole scheme was planned a whole month before Sumter was fired on! Johnstone here notes two points. “First: That the South was diligently using every means possible to preserve and establish peace; and used no treachery. Second: That the United States Government and Abraham Lincoln, deceived the people; deceived Congress, deceived the Confederate States Commissioners, by hypocritical ‘yearnings’ and ‘private’ ‘confidential’ and secret official acts, all done to insure Lincoln’s scheme to force war on the South.” All the time seeking to make it appear that the South opened the hostilities when actually it was Lincoln that did!

Johnstone’s book is available on Amazon and is not a long read, but you can tell he is not someone who wrote for a living, so you need to take that into account. That being said, his book proved on thing–Lincoln broke the Covenant and started the war  and the Yankee/Marxists in our day need to be constantly reminded of that and to know that we are not about to let them forget it!

“The Confederate Myth-Buster”

by Al Benson Jr.

Way back in 1993 Ron and Donnie Kennedy came out with their best seller The South Was Right. Over the years it has sold well over 100,000 copies.

In the process of reading it many people came up with many questions about what the Kennedy Brothers wrote in that book. Many questions were sincerely asked, while others were asked only as rhetorical questions by people hoping to be able to poke holes in what the Kennedy Brothers wrote.

Earlier this year, Donnie Kennedy wrote the book that is the title for this article. It was published by Scuppernong Press in Wake Forest, North Carolina and in it Donnie deals with some of the questions they have been asked over the years pertaining to the various subjects they discussed in The South Was Right.

In order to give readers a feel for what Donnie deals with in The Confederate Myth-Buster  I am going to note some of the topics the Kennedys have dealt with and some of the questions they have been asked about them. Obviously, I can only hit some of the high spots in a book review, but I hope I am able to hit enough that you will try to get a copy of the book and check out all the material I could not deal with here.

The subject of secession is one that has really engendered lots of questions–some good and some not to good. One question asked is “Where is it written in the US Constitution that a state has a right to secede?” The questioner may have thought he had the Kennedys over a barrel with this one. Not hardly! In fact, Donnie answers his question with an even better question. Donnie says “Since the Constitution does not provide a list of ‘rights’ your question cannot be answered. The correct question to be asked is, ‘Where in the US Constitution is the right of secession forbidden to the people of the states?’ In Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution we find those things which the states mutually agreed they would not perform as members of the new Union…But nowhere will you find the people of the states surrendering the right to judge for themselves how they should be governed…Such a people were loath to adopt a constitution that would limit their right to withdraw from a government that did not meet their needs.”

Another questioner stated: “Southern secession would have destroyed the United States. What kind of country would we have if the South had been allowed to go free?” To which Donnie answers “We would have a free country! What’s wrong with freedom? How would the secession of thirteen Southern states have destroyed the United States?” It’s a good question. It would not have, in any way, shape or form. And then Donnie continues: “Now think about it; the Southern states never desired to invade or conquer the United States. If the Federal government had chosen peace rather than war, US trade and commerce would have commenced and gone on with the South just as it had commenced and gone on with the nation to the north of the United States, Canada.” This is something people today never even consider. They need to reflect on it. The new Confederate government sent people to Washington to try to work out a peaceful solution to the problem but Lincoln wasn’t having any of that. It had to be his way or the highway, and as evidence has shown, Lincoln really wanted a war.

On the slavery question the Kennedy got lots of questions from those who thought they had them over a barrel with supposed questions that could not be answered. One they got was “How can you say the South was fighting for freedom and independence when all eleven Southern states had laws protecting slavery?” Again, Donnie answers a question with a better question. He observes: “How can you say that America was fighting for freedom and independence in 1776 when all thirteen states had laws protecting slavery and the slave trade? Only a hypocrite would condemn the South for slavery while praising the United States for doing the very same thing…The institution of slavery that includes the trans-Atlantic commerce in slaves, i.e., Yankee slave traders, has deep roots in American history, not just Southern history.” Another fact most anti-slavery folks conveniently ignore is that during the War of Northern Aggression, for one reason or another, four slave states remained in the Union. If Lincoln had really been all about freeing the slaves, then why didn’t he emancipate the slaves in those slave states that were still officially in the Union? His bogus “emancipation proclamation” didn’t bother doing that and those slaves remained in bondage until the (second) 13th Amendment was passed after Lincoln had passed on to his reward.

Then the inevitable question of racism emerges, and one questioner asks: “The Confederate flag is the flag of the Ku Klux Klan. Why should an emblem of a hate group be allowed public display?” Undoubtedly the questioner does not know his history, so Donnie sets him straight. He answers: “In the mid-1920s several very large Klan marches were held in Washington, DC. At that time thousands of Klansmen carrying hundreds of flags were seen marching down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. How many Confederate flags were displayed in these parades? There were no Confederate flags in the Klan parades, but there were hundreds of United States flags. The Klan has used many symbols during its history. The cross, the Bible, and the United States flag are just a few items used by the Klan. Shall we ban these items that are routinely used by the Klan? Where do we stop once we start banning items that have been misappropriated by hate groups? Neither the Confederate flag, nor the United States flag, nor the Bible should be banned because the Ku Klux Klan has used it. The Klan and not the items it has misused should be the object of your rage.”

Another ignorant questioner who obviously has never been taught much real history asks “With such a history of slavery and racism in the South, how can you defend Southern heritage?” By this time Donnie has to be getting tired of these airhead questions about Southern slavery and racism. He answers this question thusly: “It must be nice to live in Utopia as you do, but the rest of us don’t live there. As for your place of residence, Utopia is an air castle that does not exist. The North has its record of slavery, slave trading, and of course discrimination against people of color, yet no one is demanding that Northern heritage and/or history be eliminated. Southern heritage is more than just reliving the days of slavery. Although slavery is part of Southern history as well as American history, it is not the central theme for those who love the South…”

Donnie has also dealt with questions about Black Code laws in the South, a favorite topic of liberal leftists, and he has noted that “Black Code laws were born in the North. It was New England where schoolchildren were segregated by race before the war. One of the first acts against the freed slaves by Northern states was to pass laws to eliminate free black citizens from voting. New Jersey was one of the first Northern states to do so in 1807, Connecticut followed in 1814, and Pennsylvania’s free people of color lost the right to vote by a state court decision in 1837. Other Northern states followed suit not only by eliminating the ability of black citizens to vote, but also by excluding them from moving into their states.” Illinois, the “great emancipator’s” home state was one of these.

Some of those questions asked to the Kennedy’s reveal the abysmal lack of historical facts and understanding so prevalent in our society today. Another clueless questioner says: “Your reference to John Brown as a terrorist is somewhat off base. Wasn’t he a freedom fighter? Didn’t he make the ultimate sacrifice for human freedom?” Donnie replied: “Heroes are men who understand the ends do not justify the means. The barbaric notion of doing whatever is necessary to promote the ‘greater good’ is a tool used by most 20th century tyrants and 21st century jihadists…John Brown was a murderer who took pleasure in the slaughter of Southerners in Kansas. At Pottawatomie, Kansas, he and his sons hacked and shot to death five unarmed men within sight of their wives and children. This was done in the middle of the night, without warning–a cowardly act of murder–and this is the man you call an American hero?” Having been in Eastern Kansas on more than one occasion I can tell you, from personal experience, that there are people still there in our day that view John Brown in the same way Christians view our Savior, Jesus Christ. John Brown was a terrorist, pure and simple, but explaining that to some people confuses them with the truth, so they refuse to hear it!

Another ignorant questioner castigated Donnie for his “suggestion” that communists supported Lincoln during his War of Northern Aggression. He seeks to explain to Donnie that “Anyone with even the simplest understanding of history knows communism did not exist until after the 1917 communist revolution in Russia… How can you believe that these communists fought in the American Civil War?” Donnie goes to some length to explain to this sophomoric mentality about Karl Marx, the Communist Manifesto, written in 1848, not 1948, and he gives him some of the history that he and I wrote about in our book Lincoln’s Marxists. Some of the questions asked of Donnie by these folks about Marx and Lincoln and their connections reveal an almost total lack of understanding on the part of the askers as to what that war was really all about as well as those connected with it.
It is a daunting task to attempt to educate the historically ignorant, many of whom continue to refuse the truth because it was not what they were taught in school. Did we not realize what public education in this country was really all about we might be tempted to wonder what the schools have been doing for the past 150 years. Sadly, many of us realize what they have been doing–and real education ain’t part of it!

Donnie has so much information in The Confederate Myth-Buster  that I can’t even begin to scratch the surface. He covers topics and questions on those topics that I do not have room here to even get into, lest this review become so lengthy that few would read it.

As previously noted this book was published by Scuppernong Press, P O Box 1724, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27588  http://www.scuppernongpress.com
The cost of the book in the US is $20 and it would make a great Christmas gift for those who have historically deficient friends and relatives.